conclusion of interview in research

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.

The Interview Method In Psychology

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

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

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

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

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

On This Page:

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

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

How Do Interviews Work?

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

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

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

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

Structured Interview

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

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

   Figure 1. An example of an interview schedule

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

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

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

Limitations

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

Unstructured Interview

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

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

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

Interviewer Self-Disclosure

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

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

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

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

Focus Group Interview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-Structured Interview

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

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

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

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

The Interviewer Effect

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

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

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

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

Flooding interviews with researcher’s agenda

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

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

Interview Design

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

Characteristics of Interviewers

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

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

Interview Location

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

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

Remote Interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vulnerable Groups

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

Developing an Interview Schedule

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

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

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

The Power of Silence

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

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

Recording & Transcription

Design choices.

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

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

Transcribing Interviews & Focus Groups

Here are the steps for transcribing interviews:

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

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

Coding Transcripts

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

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

Ethical Issues

Informed consent.

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

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

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

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

Power and Vulnerability

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Various Types of Interviews in Research

Table of Contents

Have you ever considered the intricacies of a conversation? When it comes to research, particularly in psychology , interviews are not just simple conversations—they are carefully crafted tools designed to extract information, understanding, and insights. But not all interviews are created equal. Each type serves a unique purpose in the quest for knowledge. Let’s delve into the various types of interviews used in research and understand how each paves the way for discoveries within the human psyche.

Informal Conversational Interviews

Imagine a chat over coffee with a friend where the conversation flows naturally, without a rigid structure. This is the essence of an informal conversational interview. Here, the interviewer has no set questions but allows the dialogue to be guided by the interviewee’s responses and the natural course of the conversation. This flexibility can unveil rich, detailed insights, making it ideal for exploratory research.

• Spontaneous Interaction : Questions are developed spontaneously and are highly adaptable to the interviewee’s thoughts and feelings.
• Contextual Richness : The setting and flow can yield deep understanding, as interviewees often feel more comfortable and open.
• Challenges: This type of interview requires skilled interviewers who can guide the conversation effectively without leading it astray.

General Interview Guides

Shifting towards a bit more structure, general interview guides come into play. While still maintaining a conversational quality, this approach involves a prepared set of questions or topics to ensure that certain areas are explored. It strikes a balance between the natural flow of an informal interview and the focused inquiry of a more structured approach.

• Guided Flexibility : The interviewer follows a guide but has the freedom to probe deeper or ask follow-up questions.
• Consistency : Ensures that all areas of interest are covered with each participant, aiding in comparative analysis.
• Preparation: Requires careful planning to construct a guide that’s comprehensive yet flexible.

Standardized Open\-Ended Interviews

When researchers seek to combine the depth of open-ended questions with the comparability of structured interviews, standardized open-ended interviews come into the picture. This format involves a set of open-ended questions asked in the same way and order to every interviewee, allowing for rich, nuanced answers that can still be compared across different participants.

• Consistent Inquiry : The same questions ensure that each interviewee has the same opportunity to provide information.
• Open\-Ended Responses : Participants can express their thoughts freely, offering deeper insight than closed-ended questions.
• Data Analysis : While offering depth, the standardized nature of these interviews facilitates easier analysis and comparison.

Closed Fixed\-Response Interviews

For research that requires quantifiable data, closed fixed-response interviews are the go-to format. These interviews consist of a set of predetermined questions with a limited set of possible answers, much like a multiple-choice test. The rigidity of this structure makes it less suitable for exploratory research but excellent for statistical analysis.

• Quantifiable Data : Responses are easy to categorize and quantify, making them ideal for statistical analysis.
• Comparability : The uniformity of responses allows for straightforward comparison across a large number of interviewees.
• Limited Depth: The predefined responses can restrict the depth of understanding and may not capture the nuances of participants’ experiences.

Telephone Interviews

In today’s digital age , telephone interviews have become increasingly prevalent. They offer a practical and cost-effective alternative to face-to-face interviews, especially when geographical barriers exist. Telephone interviews can follow any of the aforementioned structures but require a particular set of skills given the absence of visual cues and potential for distractions.

• Accessibility : Overcomes geographical limitations and can be more convenient for participants.
• Audio\-Only Dynamics : The interviewer must rely solely on verbal cues, which can be both a limitation and an advantage for skilled interviewers.
• Considerations: The lack of visual interaction can affect rapport and the interviewer’s ability to observe non-verbal cues.

Choosing the Right Interview Type

Selecting the appropriate type of interview for a research study is an art in itself. It requires a thorough understanding of the research objectives, the nature of the subject matter, and the context within which the information will be used. Each type of interview offers a different lens through which to view the research question, and the choice must align with the research goals and the characteristics of the participant population.

Interviews in research are far from one-size-fits-all. Each type—from the free-flowing informal conversational interview to the precisely structured closed fixed-response interview—has its place in the researcher’s toolkit. The key is in knowing when and how to use each one to uncover the layers of human thought and behavior that lie beneath the surface. As we’ve seen, the art of interviewing is as much about asking the right questions as it is about choosing the right approach to asking them.

Which type of interview do you think would be most effective for understanding your own thoughts and experiences? Have you ever been part of a research study that used one of these methods, and if so, what was your experience like?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not useful for you!

Let us improve this post!

Tell us how we can improve this post?

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Submit Comment

Research Methods in Psychology

1 Introduction to Psychological Research – Objectives and Goals, Problems, Hypothesis and Variables

• Nature of Psychological Research
• The Context of Discovery
• Context of Justification
• Characteristics of Psychological Research
• Goals and Objectives of Psychological Research

2 Introduction to Psychological Experiments and Tests

• Independent and Dependent Variables
• Extraneous Variables
• Experimental and Control Groups
• Introduction of Test
• Types of Psychological Test
• Uses of Psychological Tests

3 Steps in Research

• Research Process
• Identification of the Problem
• Review of Literature
• Formulating a Hypothesis
• Identifying Manipulating and Controlling Variables
• Formulating a Research Design
• Constructing Devices for Observation and Measurement
• Sample Selection and Data Collection
• Data Analysis and Interpretation
• Hypothesis Testing
• Drawing Conclusion

4 Types of Research and Methods of Research

• Historical Research
• Descriptive Research
• Correlational Research
• Qualitative Research
• Ex-Post Facto Research
• True Experimental Research
• Quasi-Experimental Research

5 Definition and Description Research Design, Quality of Research Design

• Research Design
• Purpose of Research Design
• Design Selection
• Criteria of Research Design
• Qualities of Research Design

6 Experimental Design (Control Group Design and Two Factor Design)

• Experimental Design
• Control Group Design
• Two Factor Design

7 Survey Design

• Survey Research Designs
• Steps in Survey Design
• Structuring and Designing the Questionnaire
• Interviewing Methodology
• Data Analysis
• Final Report

8 Single Subject Design

• Single Subject Design: Definition and Meaning
• Phases Within Single Subject Design
• Requirements of Single Subject Design
• Characteristics of Single Subject Design
• Types of Single Subject Design
• Advantages of Single Subject Design
• Disadvantages of Single Subject Design

9 Observation Method

• Definition and Meaning of Observation
• Characteristics of Observation
• Types of Observation
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Observation
• Guides for Observation Method

10 Interview and Interviewing

• Definition of Interview
• Types of Interview
• Aspects of Qualitative Research Interviews
• Interview Questions
• Convergent Interviewing as Action Research
• Research Team

11 Questionnaire Method

• Definition and Description of Questionnaires
• Types of Questionnaires
• Purpose of Questionnaire Studies
• Designing Research Questionnaires
• The Methods to Make a Questionnaire Efficient
• The Types of Questionnaire to be Included in the Questionnaire
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Questionnaire
• When to Use a Questionnaire?

12 Case Study

• Definition and Description of Case Study Method
• Historical Account of Case Study Method
• Designing Case Study
• Requirements for Case Studies
• Guideline to Follow in Case Study Method
• Other Important Measures in Case Study Method
• Case Reports

13 Report Writing

• Purpose of a Report
• Writing Style of the Report
• Report Writing – the Do’s and the Don’ts
• Format for Report in Psychology Area
• Major Sections in a Report

14 Review of Literature

• Purposes of Review of Literature
• Sources of Review of Literature
• Types of Literature
• Writing Process of the Review of Literature
• Preparation of Index Card for Reviewing and Abstracting

15 Methodology

• Definition and Purpose of Methodology
• Participants (Sample)
• Apparatus and Materials

16 Result, Analysis and Discussion of the Data

• Definition and Description of Results
• Statistical Presentation
• Tables and Figures

17 Summary and Conclusion

• Summary Definition and Description
• Guidelines for Writing a Summary
• Writing the Summary and Choosing Words
• A Process for Paraphrasing and Summarising
• Summary of a Report
• Writing Conclusions

18 References in Research Report

• Reference List (the Format)
• References (Process of Writing)
• Reference List and Print Sources
• Electronic Sources
• Book on CD Tape and Movie
• Reference Specifications
• General Guidelines to Write References

Share on Mastodon

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

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 05 October 2018

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

• P. Gill 1 &
• J. Baillie 2  

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

32k Accesses

63 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

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

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Professionalism in dentistry: deconstructing common terminology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of qualitative research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of interview

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

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

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

Conducting an interview

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

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

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

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

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

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

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

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

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

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

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

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

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

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

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

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

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

Has it become easier or harder?

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

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

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus groups

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

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

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

Focus group considerations

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

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

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

Focus group management

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

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

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

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

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

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Assessment of women’s needs and wishes regarding interprofessional guidance on oral health in pregnancy – a qualitative study.

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

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

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

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

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

• Abimbola M. Oladayo
• Oluwakemi Odukoya
• Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

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

‘baby mamas’ in urban ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in accra, ghana.

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

Reproductive Health (2023)

Quick links

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

Qualitative Research 101: Interviewing

5 Common Mistakes To Avoid When Undertaking Interviews

By: David Phair (PhD) and Kerryn Warren (PhD) | March 2022

Undertaking interviews is potentially the most important step in the qualitative research process. If you don’t collect useful, useable data in your interviews, you’ll struggle through the rest of your dissertation or thesis.  Having helped numerous students with their research over the years, we’ve noticed some common interviewing mistakes that first-time researchers make. In this post, we’ll discuss five costly interview-related mistakes and outline useful strategies to avoid making these.

Overview: 5 Interviewing Mistakes

• Not having a clear interview strategy /plan
• Not having good interview techniques /skills
• Not securing a suitable location and equipment
• Not having a basic risk management plan
• Not keeping your “ golden thread ” front of mind

1. Not having a clear interview strategy

The first common mistake that we’ll look at is that of starting the interviewing process without having first come up with a clear interview strategy or plan of action. While it’s natural to be keen to get started engaging with your interviewees, a lack of planning can result in a mess of data and inconsistency between interviews.

There are several design choices to decide on and plan for before you start interviewing anyone. Some of the most important questions you need to ask yourself before conducting interviews include:

• What are the guiding research aims and research questions of my study?
• Will I use a structured, semi-structured or unstructured interview approach?
• How will I record the interviews (audio or video)?
• Who will be interviewed and by whom ?
• What ethics and data law considerations do I need to adhere to?
• How will I analyze my data? 

Let’s take a quick look at some of these.

The core objective of the interviewing process is to generate useful data that will help you address your overall research aims. Therefore, your interviews need to be conducted in a way that directly links to your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. your “golden thread”). This means that you need to carefully consider the questions you’ll ask to ensure that they align with and feed into your golden thread. If any question doesn’t align with this, you may want to consider scrapping it.

Another important design choice is whether you’ll use an unstructured, semi-structured or structured interview approach . For semi-structured interviews, you will have a list of questions that you plan to ask and these questions will be open-ended in nature. You’ll also allow the discussion to digress from the core question set if something interesting comes up. This means that the type of information generated might differ a fair amount between interviews.

Contrasted to this, a structured approach to interviews is more rigid, where a specific set of closed questions is developed and asked for each interviewee in exactly the same order. Closed questions have a limited set of answers, that are often single-word answers. Therefore, you need to think about what you’re trying to achieve with your research project (i.e. your research aims) and decided on which approach would be best suited in your case.

It is also important to plan ahead with regards to who will be interviewed and how. You need to think about how you will approach the possible interviewees to get their cooperation, who will conduct the interviews, when to conduct the interviews and how to record the interviews. For each of these decisions, it’s also essential to make sure that all ethical considerations and data protection laws are taken into account.

Finally, you should think through how you plan to analyze the data (i.e., your qualitative analysis method) generated by the interviews. Different types of analysis rely on different types of data, so you need to ensure you’re asking the right types of questions and correctly guiding your respondents.

Simply put, you need to have a plan of action regarding the specifics of your interview approach before you start collecting data. If not, you’ll end up drifting in your approach from interview to interview, which will result in inconsistent, unusable data.

2. Not having good interview technique

While you’re generally not expected to become you to be an expert interviewer for a dissertation or thesis, it is important to practice good interview technique and develop basic interviewing skills .

Let’s go through some basics that will help the process along.

Firstly, before the interview , make sure you know your interview questions well and have a clear idea of what you want from the interview. Naturally, the specificity of your questions will depend on whether you’re taking a structured, semi-structured or unstructured approach, but you still need a consistent starting point . Ideally, you should develop an interview guide beforehand (more on this later) that details your core question and links these to the research aims, objectives and research questions.

Before you undertake any interviews, it’s a good idea to do a few mock interviews with friends or family members. This will help you get comfortable with the interviewer role, prepare for potentially unexpected answers and give you a good idea of how long the interview will take to conduct. In the interviewing process, you’re likely to encounter two kinds of challenging interviewees ; the two-word respondent and the respondent who meanders and babbles. Therefore, you should prepare yourself for both and come up with a plan to respond to each in a way that will allow the interview to continue productively.

To begin the formal interview , provide the person you are interviewing with an overview of your research. This will help to calm their nerves (and yours) and contextualize the interaction. Ultimately, you want the interviewee to feel comfortable and be willing to be open and honest with you, so it’s useful to start in a more casual, relaxed fashion and allow them to ask any questions they may have. From there, you can ease them into the rest of the questions.

As the interview progresses , avoid asking leading questions (i.e., questions that assume something about the interviewee or their response). Make sure that you speak clearly and slowly , using plain language and being ready to paraphrase questions if the person you are interviewing misunderstands. Be particularly careful with interviewing English second language speakers to ensure that you’re both on the same page.

Engage with the interviewee by listening to them carefully and acknowledging that you are listening to them by smiling or nodding. Show them that you’re interested in what they’re saying and thank them for their openness as appropriate. This will also encourage your interviewee to respond openly.

Need a helping hand?

3. Not securing a suitable location and quality equipment

Where you conduct your interviews and the equipment you use to record them both play an important role in how the process unfolds. Therefore, you need to think carefully about each of these variables before you start interviewing.

Poor location: A bad location can result in the quality of your interviews being compromised, interrupted, or cancelled. If you are conducting physical interviews, you’ll need a location that is quiet, safe, and welcoming . It’s very important that your location of choice is not prone to interruptions (the workplace office is generally problematic, for example) and has suitable facilities (such as water, a bathroom, and snacks).

If you are conducting online interviews , you need to consider a few other factors. Importantly, you need to make sure that both you and your respondent have access to a good, stable internet connection and electricity. Always check before the time that both of you know how to use the relevant software and it’s accessible (sometimes meeting platforms are blocked by workplace policies or firewalls). It’s also good to have alternatives in place (such as WhatsApp, Zoom, or Teams) to cater for these types of issues.

Poor equipment: Using poor-quality recording equipment or using equipment incorrectly means that you will have trouble transcribing, coding, and analyzing your interviews. This can be a major issue , as some of your interview data may go completely to waste if not recorded well. So, make sure that you use good-quality recording equipment and that you know how to use it correctly.

To avoid issues, you should always conduct test recordings before every interview to ensure that you can use the relevant equipment properly. It’s also a good idea to spot check each recording afterwards, just to make sure it was recorded as planned. If your equipment uses batteries, be sure to always carry a spare set.

4. Not having a basic risk management plan

Many possible issues can arise during the interview process. Not planning for these issues can mean that you are left with compromised data that might not be useful to you. Therefore, it’s important to map out some sort of risk management plan ahead of time, considering the potential risks, how you’ll minimize their probability and how you’ll manage them if they materialize.

Common potential issues related to the actual interview include cancellations (people pulling out), delays (such as getting stuck in traffic), language and accent differences (especially in the case of poor internet connections), issues with internet connections and power supply. Other issues can also occur in the interview itself. For example, the interviewee could drift off-topic, or you might encounter an interviewee who does not say much at all.

You can prepare for these potential issues by considering possible worst-case scenarios and preparing a response for each scenario. For instance, it is important to plan a backup date just in case your interviewee cannot make it to the first meeting you scheduled with them. It’s also a good idea to factor in a 30-minute gap between your interviews for the instances where someone might be late, or an interview runs overtime for other reasons. Make sure that you also plan backup questions that could be used to bring a respondent back on topic if they start rambling, or questions to encourage those who are saying too little.

In general, it’s best practice to plan to conduct more interviews than you think you need (this is called oversampling ). Doing so will allow you some room for error if there are interviews that don’t go as planned, or if some interviewees withdraw. If you need 10 interviews, it is a good idea to plan for 15. Likely, a few will cancel , delay, or not produce useful data.

5. Not keeping your golden thread front of mind

We touched on this a little earlier, but it is a key point that should be central to your entire research process. You don’t want to end up with pages and pages of data after conducting your interviews and realize that it is not useful to your research aims . Your research aims, objectives and research questions – i.e., your golden thread – should influence every design decision and should guide the interview process at all times. 

A useful way to avoid this mistake is by developing an interview guide before you begin interviewing your respondents. An interview guide is a document that contains all of your questions with notes on how each of the interview questions is linked to the research question(s) of your study. You can also include your research aims and objectives here for a more comprehensive linkage. 

You can easily create an interview guide by drawing up a table with one column containing your core interview questions . Then add another column with your research questions , another with expectations that you may have in light of the relevant literature and another with backup or follow-up questions . As mentioned, you can also bring in your research aims and objectives to help you connect them all together. If you’d like, you can download a copy of our free interview guide here .

Recap: Qualitative Interview Mistakes

In this post, we’ve discussed 5 common costly mistakes that are easy to make in the process of planning and conducting qualitative interviews.

To recap, these include:

If you have any questions about these interviewing mistakes, drop a comment below. Alternatively, if you’re interested in getting 1-on-1 help with your thesis or dissertation , check out our dissertation coaching service or book a free initial consultation with one of our friendly Grad Coaches.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Using an interview in a research paper

Consultant contributor: Viviane Ugalde

Using an interview can be an effective primary source for some papers and research projects. Finding an expert in the field or some other person who has knowledge of your topic can allow for you to gather unique information not available elsewhere.

There are four steps to using an interview as a source for your research.

• Know where and how to start.
• Know how to write a good question.
• Know how to conduct an interview.
• Know how to incorporate the interview into your document or project.

Step one: Where to start

First, you should determine your goals and ask yourself these questions:

• Who are the local experts on topic?
• How can I contact these people?
• Does anyone know them to help me setup the interviews?
• Are their phone numbers in the phone book or can I find them on the Internet?

Once you answer these questions and pick your interviewee, get their basic information such as their name, title, and other general details. If you reach out and your interview does not participate, don’t be discouraged. Keep looking for other interview contacts.

Step two: How to write a good question

When you have confirmed an interview, it is not time to come up with questions.

• Learning as much as you can about the person before the interview can help you create questions specific to your interview subject.
• Doing research about your interviewee’s past experience in your topic, or any texts that they have written would be great background research.

When you start to think of questions, write down more questions than you think you’ll need, and prioritize them as you go. Any good questions will answer the 5W and H questions. Asking Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How questions that you need answered for your paper, will help you form a question to ask your interviewee.

When writing a good question, try thinking of something that will help your argument.

• Is your interviewee an advocate for you position?
• Are they in any programs that are related to your research?
• How much experience do they have?

From broad questions like these, you can begin to narrow down to more specific and open-ended questions.

Step three: The interview

If at all possible, arrange to conduct the interview at the subject’s workplace. It will make them more comfortable, and you can write about their surroundings.

• Begin the interview with some small talk in order to give both of you the chance to get comfortable with one another
• Develop rapport that will make the interview easier for both of you.
• Ask open-ended questions
• Keep the conversation moving
• Stay on topic
• The more silence in the room, the more honest the answer.
• If an interesting subject comes up that is related to your research, ask a follow-up or an additional question about it.
• Ask if you can stay in contact with your interview subject in case there are any additional questions you have.

Step four: Incorporating the interview

When picking the material out of your interview, remember that people rarely speak perfectly. There will be many slang words and pauses that you can take out, as long as it does not change the meaning of the material you are using.

As you introduce your interview in the paper, start with a transition such as “according to” or other attributions. You should also be specific to the type of interview you are working with. This way, you will build a stronger ethos in your paper .

The body of your essay should clearly set up the quote or paraphrase you use from the interview responses,. Be careful not to stick a quote from the interview into the body of your essay because it sounds good. When deciding what to quote in your paper, think about what dialogue from the interview would add the most color to your interview. Quotes that illustrate what your interviewer sounded like, or what their personality is are always the best quotes to choose from.

Once you have done that, proofread your essay. Make sure the quotes you used don’t make up the majority of your paper. The interview quotes are supposed to support your argument; you are not supposed to support the interview.

For example, let’s say that you are arguing that free education is better than not. For your argument, you interview a local politician who is on your side of the argument. Rather than using a large quote that explains the stance of both sides, and why the politician chose this side, your quote is there to support the information you’ve already given. Whatever the politician says should prove what you argue, and not give new information.

Step five: Examples of citing your interviews 

Smith, Jane. Personal interview. 19 May 2018.

(E. Robbins, personal communication, January 4, 2018).

Smith also claimed that many of her students had difficulties with APA style (personal communication, November 3, 2018).

Reference list

Daly, C. & Leighton W. (2017). Interviewing a Source: Tips. Journalists Resource.

Driscoll, D. (2018 ). Interviewing. Purdue University

Hayden, K. (2012). How to Conduct an Interview to Write a Paper . Bright Hub Education, Bright Hub Inc.

Hose, C. (2017). How to Incorporate Interviews into Essays. Leaf Group Education.

Magnesi, J. (2017). How to Interview Someone for an Article or Research Paper. Career Trend, Leaf group Media.

Research Interviews: An effective and insightful way of data collection

Research interviews play a pivotal role in collecting data for various academic, scientific, and professional endeavors. They provide researchers with an opportunity to delve deep into the thoughts, experiences, and perspectives of an individual, thus enabling a comprehensive understanding of complex phenomena. It is important for researchers to design an effective and insightful method of data collection on a particular topic. A research interview is typically a two-person meeting conducted to collect information on a certain topic. It is a qualitative data collection method to gain primary information.

The three key features of a research interview are as follows:

Table of Contents

The Significance of Research Interviews in Gathering Primary Data

The role of research interviews in gathering first-hand information is invaluable. Additionally, they allow researchers to interact directly with participants, enabling them to collect unfiltered primary data.

1. Subjective Experience

Research interviews facilitate in-depth exploration of a research topic. Thus, by engaging in one-to-one conversation with participants, researchers can delve into the nuances and complexities of their experiences, perspectives, and opinions. This allows comprehensive understanding of the research subject that may not be possible through other methods. Also, research interviews offer the unique advantage of capturing subjective experiences through personal narratives. Moreover, participants can express their thoughts, feelings, and beliefs, which add depth to the findings.

2. Personal Insights

Research interviews offer an opportunity for participants to share their views and opinions on the objective they are being interviewed for. Furthermore, participants can express their thoughts and experiences, providing rich qualitative data . Consequently, these personal narratives add a human element to the research, thus enhancing the understanding of the topic from the participants’ perspectives. Research interviews offer the opportunity to uncover unanticipated insights or emerging themes. Additionally, open-ended questions and active listening can help the researchers to identify new perspectives, ideas, or patterns that may not have been initially considered. As a result, these factors can lead to new avenues for exploration.

3. Clarification and Validation

Researchers can clarify participants’ responses and validate their understanding during an interview. This ensures accurate data collection and interpretation. Additionally, researchers can probe deeper into participants’ statements and seek clarification on any ambiguity in the information.

4. Contextual Information

Research interviews allow researchers to gather contextual information that offers a comprehensive understanding of the research topic. Additionally, participants can provide insights into the social, cultural, or environmental factors that shape their experiences, behaviors, and beliefs. This contextual information helps researchers place the data in a broader context and facilitates a more nuanced analysis.

5. Non-verbal Cues

In addition to verbal responses, research interviews allow researchers to observe non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice. Additionally, non-verbal cues can convey information, such as emotions, attitudes, or levels of comfort. Furthermore, integrating non-verbal cues with verbal responses provides a more holistic understanding of participants’ experiences and enriches the data collection process.

Research interviews offer several advantages, making them a reliable tool for collecting information. However, choosing the right type of research interview is essential for collecting useful data.

Types of Research Interviews

There are several types of research interviews that researchers can use based on their research goals , the nature of their study, and the data they aim to collect. Here are some common types of research interviews:

1. Structured Interviews

• Structured interviews are standardized and follow a fixed format.
• Therefore, these interviews have a pre-determined set of questions.
• All the participants are asked the same set of questions in the same order.
• Therefore, this type of interview facilitates standardization and allows easy comparison and quantitative analysis of responses.
• As a result, structured interviews are used in surveys or studies which aims for a high level of standardization and comparability.

2. Semi-structured Interviews

• Semi-structured interviews offer a flexible framework by combining pre-determined questions.
• So, this gives an opportunity for follow-up questions and open-ended discussions.
• Researchers have a list of core questions but can adapt the interview depending on the participant’s responses.
• Consequently, this allows for in-depth exploration while maintaining some level of consistency across interviews.
• As a result, semi-structured interviews are widely used in qualitative research, where content-rich data is desired.

3. Unstructured Interviews

• Unstructured interviews provide the greatest flexibility and freedom in the interview process.
• This type do not have a pre-determined set of questions.
• Thus, the conversation flows naturally based on the participant’s responses and the researcher’s interests.
• Moreover, this type of interview allows for open-ended exploration and encourages participants to share their experiences, thoughts, and perspectives freely.
• Unstructured interviews useful to explore new or complex research topics, with limited preconceived questions.

4. Group Interviews (Focus Groups)

• Group interviews involve multiple participants who engage in a facilitated discussion on a specific topic.
• This format allows the interaction and exchange of ideas among participants, generating a group dynamic.
• Therefore, group interviews are beneficial for capturing diverse perspectives, and generating collective insights.
• They are often used in market research, social sciences, or studies demanding shared experiences.

5. Narrative Interviews

• Narrative interviews focus on eliciting participants’ personal stories, views, experiences, and narratives. Researchers aim to look into the individual’s life journey.
• As a result, this type of interview allows participants to construct and share their own narratives, providing rich qualitative data.
• Qualitative research, oral history, or studies focusing on individual experiences and identities uses narrative interviews.

6. Ethnographic Interviews

• Ethnographic interviews are conducted within the context of ethnographic research, where researchers immerse themselves in a specific social or cultural setting.
• These interviews aim to understand participants’ experiences, beliefs, and practices within their cultural context, thereby understanding diversity in different ethnic groups.
• Furthermore, ethnographic interviews involve building rapport, observing the participants’ daily lives, and engaging in conversations that capture the nuances of the culture under study.

It must be noted that these interview types are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, researchers often employ a combination of approaches to gather the most comprehensive data for their research. The choice of interview type depends on the research objectives and the nature of the research topic.

Steps of Conducting a Research Interview

Research interviews offer several benefits, and thus careful planning and execution of the entire process are important to gather in-depth information from the participants. While conducting an interview, it is essential to know the necessary steps to follow for ensuring success. The steps to conduct a research interview are as follows:

• Identify the objectives and understand the goals
• Select an appropriate interview format
• Organize the necessary materials for the interview
• Understand the questions to be addressed
• Analyze the demographics of interviewees
• Select the interviewees
• Design the interview questions to gather sufficient information
• Schedule the interview
• Explain the purpose of the interview
• Analyze the interviewee based on his/her responses

Considerations for Research Interviews

Since the flexible nature of research interviews makes them an invaluable tool for data collection, researchers must consider certain factors to make the process effective. They should avoid bias and preconceived notion against the participants. Furthermore, researchers must comply with ethical considerations and respect the cultural differences between them and the participants. Also, they should ensure careful tailoring of the questions to avoid making them offensive or derogatory. The interviewers must respect the privacy of the participants and ensure the confidentiality of their details.

By ensuring due diligence of these considerations associated with research interviews, researchers can maximize the validity and reliability of the collected data, leading to robust and meaningful research outcomes.

Have you ever conducted a research interview? What was your experience? What factors did you consider when conducting a research interview? Share it with researchers worldwide by submitting your thought piece on Enago Academy’s Open Blogging Platform .

Frequently Asked Questions

• Identify the objectives of the interview • State and explain the purpose of the interview • Select an appropriate interview format • Organize the necessary materials for the Interview • Check the demographics of the participants • Select the Interviewees or the participants • Prepare the list of questions to gather maximum useful data from the participants • Schedule the Interview • Analyze the participant based on his/ her Responses

Interviews are important in research as it helps to gather elaborative first-hand information. It helps to draw conclusions from the non-verbal views and personal experiences. It reduces the ambiguity of data through detailed discussions.

The advantages of research interviews are: • It offers first-hand information • Offers detailed assessment which can result in elaborate conclusions • It is easy to conduct • Provides non-verbal cues The disadvantages of research interviews are: • There is a risk of personal bias • It can be time consuming • The outcomes might be unpredictable

The difference between structured and unstructured interview are: • Structured interviews have well-structured questions in a pre-determined order; while unstructured interviews are flexible and do not have a pre-planned set of questions. • Structured interview is more detailed; while unstructured interviews are exploratory in nature. • Structured interview is easier to replicate as compared to unstructured interview.

Focus groups is a group of multiple participants engaging in a facilitated discussion on a specific topic. This format allows for interaction and exchange of ideas among participants.

Rate this article Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Enago Academy's Most Popular Articles

• Promoting Research

Graphical Abstracts Vs. Infographics: Best practices for using visual illustrations for increased research impact

Dr. Sarah Chen stared at her computer screen, her eyes staring at her recently published…

• Publishing Research

10 Tips to Prevent Research Papers From Being Retracted

Research paper retractions represent a critical event in the scientific community. When a published article…

• Industry News

Google Releases 2024 Scholar Metrics, Evaluates Impact of Scholarly Articles

Google has released its 2024 Scholar Metrics, assessing scholarly articles from 2019 to 2023. This…

Ensuring Academic Integrity and Transparency in Academic Research: A comprehensive checklist for researchers

Academic integrity is the foundation upon which the credibility and value of scientific findings are…

• Reporting Research

How to Optimize Your Research Process: A step-by-step guide

For researchers across disciplines, the path to uncovering novel findings and insights is often filled…

Choosing the Right Analytical Approach: Thematic analysis vs. content analysis for…

Research Recommendations – Guiding policy-makers for evidence-based decision making

Demystifying the Role of Confounding Variables in Research

Sign-up to read more

Subscribe for free to get unrestricted access to all our resources on research writing and academic publishing including:

• 2000+ blog articles
• 50+ Webinars
• 10+ Expert podcasts
• 50+ Infographics
• 10+ Checklists
• Research Guides

We hate spam too. We promise to protect your privacy and never spam you.

• AI in Academia
• Career Corner
• Diversity and Inclusion
• Infographics
• Expert Video Library
• Other Resources
• Enago Learn
• Upcoming & On-Demand Webinars
• Peer Review Week 2024
• Open Access Week 2023
• Conference Videos
• Enago Report
• Journal Finder
• Enago Plagiarism & AI Grammar Check
• Editing Services
• Publication Support Services
• Research Impact
• Translation Services
• Publication solutions
• AI-Based Solutions
• Thought Leadership
• Call for Articles
• Call for Speakers
• Author Training
• Edit Profile

I am looking for Editing/ Proofreading services for my manuscript Tentative date of next journal submission:

In your opinion, what is the most effective way to improve integrity in the peer review process?

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

The Use of Closing Questions in Qualitative Research: Results of a Web-Based Survey

Timothy joseph sowicz.

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing, Greensboro, NC

Justine S. Sefcik

University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA

Helen L. Teng

Elliane irani.

Case Western Reserve University Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Cleveland, OH

Terri-Ann Kelly

Rutgers School of Nursing – Camden, Camden, NJ

Christine Bradway

Author Note

Justine S. Sefcik, Ph.D., RN , is Postdoctoral Fellow and Helen L. Teng, MSN, RN , is Doctoral Student and Christine Bradway, Ph.D., CRNP, FAAN, AGSF , is Associate Professor of Gerontological Nursing, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA.

Elliane Irani, Ph.D., RN , is Postdoctoral Fellow, Case Western Reserve University Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Cleveland, OH.

Terri-Ann Kelly, Ph.D., RN , is Assistant Professor, Rutgers School of Nursing – Camden, Camden, NJ.

Scarce and differing reasons for including closing questions in qualitative research exist, but how data generated from these questions are used remains uncertain.

The purpose of the study was to understand if and how researchers use closing questions in qualitative research; specifically, the research questions were: (a) “Why do qualitative researchers include or exclude closing questions during interviews?”; and (b) “How do qualitative researchers use data from closing questions?”

A qualitative descriptive design using a single, asynchronous, web-based, investigator-designed survey containing 14 items was used to collect data. Convenience and snowball sampling were used to recruit participants. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. Codes were developed from the qualitative data. Subcategories were derived from similar codes, and these subcategories were further scrutinized and were used to create broad categories.

The number of respondents per question ranged from 76 to 99; most identified nursing and sociology as their academic disciplines, lived in the United States, and were involved in qualitative research for 1 to 10 years. Data, the interview, the interviewee , and the interviewer were broad categories to emerge as reasons for including closing questions. Only one respondent reported a reason for excluding closing questions. The uses of closing question data were described in four broad categories: analysis; data; the interview guide ; and inquiry .

Researchers frequently included closing questions in qualitative studies. The reasons for including these questions and how data are used varies and support for closing questions is limited in previously published literature. One unique reason, adding “new breath” to the interview, emerged. Study findings can aid qualitative researchers in deciding whether to include closing questions.

Qualitative researchers use various approaches to conclude interviews. The absence of standard procedures or rules contributes to methodological variability ( Brinkmann & Kvale, 2014 ). Some researchers terminate an interview by thanking participants and acknowledging their contributions ( Baumbusch, 2010 ; Whiting, 2008 ); others add closing questions. Limited and divergent accounts exist regarding researchers’ choice of executing closing questions, question format, and rationale for including these.

A closing question may allow research participants time to reflect, share additional information, and decompress; however, how this information informs the research is unclear. King and Horrocks (2010) suggest using closing questions to give more control to participants and ask if they want to share anything else or inquire about the research. Rationale for this approach is to minimize tension or anxiety from discussing personal and emotional experiences, and/or concerns about the research process. Similarly, Brinkmann and Kvale (2014) add a final debriefing stage to allow participants to process emotions and share further information. During debriefing, the interviewer may summarize the main points and ask participants to comment and provide feedback. The authors provide no guidance on how the additional information and feedback are used. In contrast, other authors use closing questions to signal the conclusion of the interview ( Castillo-Montoya, 2016 ; Wengraf, 2001 ). Although not considered primary research questions, reflective closing questions may add valuable information or raise additional issues for the researcher to consider ( Castillo-Montoya, 2016 ).

Few authors describe how they use or analyze data generated from closing questions. Krueger and Casey (2015) include three types of closing questions with focus groups, which they believe are critical for data analysis and directing future interviews. Participants are asked an all-things-considered question (e.g., “Of all the needs we discussed, which one is most important to you?”) allowing participants time to reflect, comment on critical areas of concern, and clarify their positions. Responses inform interpretation of conflicting comments and assign weight of importance. A summary question (e.g., “Is this an adequate summary?”) and then an insurance question (e.g., “Have we missed anything?”) are used for considering topic importance, and can inform modifications of interview guides. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe terminating an interview by completing a member check where the interviewer summarizes what they believe they just learned, and the interviewee is given time to react and comment on the validity of the constructs made. All information learned, including additional thoughts sparked by the summary, is available for possible triangulation and further member checking as the study proceeds ( Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ).

Due to limited and variable literature regarding closing questions, the purpose of our study was to understand if and how researchers use closing questions during qualitative interviews. Specifically, our questions were: (a) “Why do qualitative researchers include or exclude closing questions during interviews?); and (b) “How do qualitative researchers use data from closing questions?”

Study Design

A qualitative descriptive design was utilized for this study. No a priori conceptual framework was used in this study; however, the study was informed by the axioms of the naturalistic paradigm as described by Lincoln and Guba (1985) . The [institution 1] and [institution 2; blinded for review] institutional review boards deemed this study exempt.

Participants

A convenience sample of researchers known to the authors as having engaged in qualitative research were recruited initially; snowball sampling was used to recruit additional participants. First, the corresponding author emailed 15 colleagues to describe the study and included a link to complete the web-based survey. Additionally, coauthors sent emails to 66 others, and these 81 (15 + 66) initial contacts were asked to forward the survey to others engaged in qualitative research. Given the recruitment strategy, it is unknown how many emails were sent inviting people to complete the survey; therefore, we are unable to calculate a response rate.

Measurements

A single, asynchronous, web-based, investigator-designed survey was used to collect data. Before launching the survey, coauthors pilot tested it to improve the questions’ structure and sequence. The final survey included 14 questions: Nine multiple-choice and five free text responses. Respondents were asked about themselves, their experiences with conducting qualitative research and, specifically, if and how they used closing questions during qualitative interviews. The survey was administered via SurveyMonkey® and was available from December 11, 2017 until January 8, 2018.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data from the multiple-choice questions; however, the focus of this article is on the responses to two of the free text questions: (a) “Please tell us why you include or do not include closing questions in your interviews.”; and (b) “Please tell us how you use the data generated from closing questions.” Individual responses to these questions were analyzed using qualitative content analysis ( Graneheim & Lundman, 2004 ; Sandelowski, 1995 ). Individual codes that were similar in content and meaning were subcategorized. Subcategories were further scrutinized and placed into broader categories ( Morse, 2008 ). Table 1 provides an example of how similar codes were collapsed into subcategories, which were then collapsed into a category. Separate codebooks were created for each question given that the purpose of each differed (i.e., reasons for excluding/including closing questions and how data from them are used). Data were analyzed by the corresponding author and final categories were reviewed and approved by all authors. Techniques to establish trustworthiness included the development of a coding system, peer debriefing, and maintaining an audit trail of decisions related to analysis ( Abboud et al., 2017 ; Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ; Morse, 2015 ).

Example of Category Development

Respondents per question ranged from 76 to 99. Academic discipline/profession was reported by 99 respondents. Most identified with nursing (49%) and sociology (17%); 17% were not explicit (e.g., “social science” and “researcher”). Current country of residence varied; the United States was the most frequent answer (83%). Other reported locations were Canada (7%), the United Kingdom (2%), and Brazil, India, Ireland, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Switzerland, and Turkey (1% each). Years involved in qualitative research was reported by 96 respondents; 15 years was the most frequent (35%) followed by 6–10 years (27%), more than 15 years (25%), less than one year (7%), and 11–15 years (5%).

The frequency of including closing questions was reported by 95 respondents; 81% reported doing so “always”, 15% “sometimes”, and 4% “never”. The inclusion of closing questions by interview type varied among the 91 respondents to this question; 91% for semistructured interviews; 34% for structured interviews; and 29% for unstructured interviews (this question allowed respondents to choose all answers that apply).

Reasons for Excluding or Including Closing Questions

Free text answers from 85 participants regarding reasons for including closing questions during interviews were analyzed and four broad categories emerged: data; the interview; the interviewee; and the interviewer. Table 2 includes representative quotes from each of these categories. Only one respondent offered a reason for excluding closing questions: “I feel these kinds of closing questions are often unhelpful, as most will just respond ‘no’ or go on a tangent that is not necessarily related to your research questions.”

Reasons for Including Closing Questions

Respondents described using closing questions as a means of collecting data, including adding to existing data, uncovering new areas or topics to explore, and for modifying interview guides.

The Interview

Most responses in this category indicated that closing questions are included as a means for signaling the close of the interview. Additionally, respondents offered that these questions are a way of indicating the existence of the relationship between the interviewee and the interviewer. Notably, one respondent indicated, “i [ sic ] always include closing questions because they can give an [ sic ] new breath to the interview”, which contrasts most reasons for including them.

The Interviewee

Many respondents reported asking closing questions to acknowledge the interviewee as a person. These acknowledgments took many forms, including conferring respect and honoring participants, conveying that participants were heard, and that their experiences were valued. Closing questions were also noted to give interviewees “a feeling of agency” and voice as they expand on interview topics, particularly those most important to them.

Responses in this category moved beyond simply garnering interviewees’ replies to questions, but rather, provided opportunities for researchers to hear additional information free of interviewers’ assumptions and removed from their own research agenda. Such questions were also described as benefiting interviewees by providing an outlet for reconsidering or rethinking topics discussed during interviews, summarizing and finalizing thoughts, and gaining closure to the experience of being interviewed or of speaking about their experiences.

The Interviewer

This category concerns use of closing questions for the purpose of serving the interviewer. Closing questions provide them opportunities to obtain feedback for instrument development, clarify interviewees’ responses, and terminate the relationship. In addition, closing questions are used to ensure data needed for the research endeavor have been obtained, and to attain information to support an argument or stance related to the area being studied.

The Uses of Closing Question Data

In addition to understanding why closing questions are used, we were also interested in learning how respondents use the data. Free-text answers from 81 respondents were gathered and from these four broad categories emerged from these data: Analysis, data, the interview guide, and inquiry. Table 3 includes representative quotes from each of these categories.

Uses of Closing Question Data

Some respondents described using closing question data similarly to how they use all other study data, while others reported separate analysis of these questions. Respondents also described using data from closing questions in all phases of the analytic process, including generating codes and themes and for higher levels of analysis, such as data interpretation. Data also served as a source of reflection for researchers relative to what they are learning from the data and how they come to understand them.

Data are used as new information or to supplement and clarify other existing data, or, more generally, to add to the overall body of data. Some respondents noted they rarely or ever use these data, offering that closing questions generate little or no data, and that use is dependent on some other condition (e.g., if relevant to the purpose of the interview).

The Interview Guide

Some respondents reported using data to inform and modify interview guides, such as via addition of questions and prompts to be included in subsequent versions.

Finally, data are used to discover new areas for future inquiry. Examples include generating new research questions or components of future studies (e.g., informing the development of a survey).

To our knowledge this is the first study to describe why researchers include closing questions and how data from them are used. We found most respondents use closing questions; however, the rationale for inclusion and how the data are used varies. As with Castillo-Montoya’s (2016) suggestion, some respondents had a functional intention for the closing question: Signaling the end of the interview and validating the relationship between the interviewer and interviewee. Our study unearthed a previously unreported reason for including a closing question: Adding “an [ sic ] new breath” to the interview. This runs counter to ending an interview ( Wengraf, 2001 ) which is inherent in the name “closing” question.

Respondents shared they intended for the closing question to augment or expand what had been shared by the interviewee, striving for completeness in the data in case something pertinent was not captured previously in the interview. Echoing King and Horrocks (2010) , some respondents felt closing questions provide a space where the interviewee may have a stronger sense of agency and autonomy. The open-endedness of the questions does not impose the theoretical or philosophical lens that may have informed the interview guide, giving interviewees more control. Interestingly no respondents used closing questions as an opportunity for the interviewee to emotionally debrief from the interview as suggested by Brinkmann and Kvale (2014) .

Respondents included closing questions to generate data to inform future topics of inquiry and modify interview guides, and analyzed data produced by closing questions jointly and separately from the rest of the data. Closing question data augments existing data when analyzed jointly. Reflecting on Krueger and Casey’s (2015) and Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) use of the closing question, data analyzed separately from the rest of the data were treated as new information, supplemental, or used for triangulation. This strategy further strengthens the trustworthiness of the data and rigor of the study ( Lincoln & Guba, 1985 ). Limitations include convenience and snowball sampling and a design that did not allow us to ask follow-up or probing questions to further explore answers to free text response questions. Additionally, our survey was created by and for those whose primary language is English.

We found that researchers include closing questions in qualitative research, which is consistent with the limited existing literature and reinforces that valuable data can be collected via closing questions. We recommend building on our results to further the discussion regarding alternative views, usefulness of established criteria researchers use to guide closing question development and use, and as a process of sparking continued conversations about this commonly used component of data collection.

Acknowledgement

Research reported in this publication was supported by The Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System (Dr. Sowicz) and the National Institute of Nursing Research of the National Institutes of Health under Award Numbers T32NR015433 (Dr. Irani) and T32NR009356 (Dr. Sefcik). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health or the Veterans Health Administration. The authors thank the peer reviewers for their thoughtful critique of previous versions of our article.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Ethical Conduct of Research : The VA Pittsburgh Healthcare System and The University of North Carolina at Greensboro institutional review boards deemed this study exempt.

Clinical Trial Registration : Not applicable.

Contributor Information

Timothy Joseph Sowicz, The University of North Carolina at Greensboro School of Nursing, Greensboro, NC.

Justine S. Sefcik, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA.

Helen L. Teng, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA.

Elliane Irani, Case Western Reserve University Frances Payne Bolton School of Nursing, Cleveland, OH.

Terri-Ann Kelly, Rutgers School of Nursing – Camden, Camden, NJ.

Christine Bradway, University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA.

• Abboud S, Kim SK, Jacoby S, Mooney-Doyle K, Waite T, Froh E, . . . Kagan S (2017). Co-creation of a pedagogical space to support qualitative inquiry: An advanced qualitative collective . Nurse Education Today , 50 , 8–11. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2016.12.001 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baumbusch J (2010). Semi-structured interviewing in practice-close research . Journal for Specialists in Pediatric Nursing , 15 , 255–258. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6155.2010.00243.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brinkmann S, & Kvale S (2014). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Castillo-Montoya M (2016). Preparing for interview research: The interview protocol refinement framework . The Qualitative Report , 21 , 811–831. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graneheim UH, & Lundman B (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness . Nurse Education Today , 24 , 105–112. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King N, & Horrocks C (2010). Interviews in qualitative research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krueger RA, & Casey MA (2015). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lincoln YS, & Guba EG (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM (2008). Confusing categories and themes . Qualitative Health Research , 18 , 727–728. doi: 10.1177/1049732308314930 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse JM (2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry . Qualitative Health Research , 25 , 1212–1222. doi: 10.1177/1049732315588501 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sandelowski M (1995). Sample size in qualitative research . Research in Nursing & Health , 18 , 179–183. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770180211 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wengraf T (2001). Qualitative research interviewing . London, UK: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whiting LS (2008). Semi-structured interviews: Guidance for novice researchers . Nursing Standard , 22 , 35–41. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

How to write a strong conclusion for your research paper

Last updated

17 February 2024

Reviewed by

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

Writing a research paper is a chance to share your knowledge and hypothesis. It's an opportunity to demonstrate your many hours of research and prove your ability to write convincingly.

Ideally, by the end of your research paper, you'll have brought your readers on a journey to reach the conclusions you've pre-determined. However, if you don't stick the landing with a good conclusion, you'll risk losing your reader’s trust.

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper involves a few important steps, including restating the thesis and summing up everything properly.

Find out what to include and what to avoid, so you can effectively demonstrate your understanding of the topic and prove your expertise.

• Why is a good conclusion important?

A good conclusion can cement your paper in the reader’s mind. Making a strong impression in your introduction can draw your readers in, but it's the conclusion that will inspire them.

• What to include in a research paper conclusion

There are a few specifics you should include in your research paper conclusion. Offer your readers some sense of urgency or consequence by pointing out why they should care about the topic you have covered. Discuss any common problems associated with your topic and provide suggestions as to how these problems can be solved or addressed.

The conclusion should include a restatement of your initial thesis. Thesis statements are strengthened after you’ve presented supporting evidence (as you will have done in the paper), so make a point to reintroduce it at the end.

Finally, recap the main points of your research paper, highlighting the key takeaways you want readers to remember. If you've made multiple points throughout the paper, refer to the ones with the strongest supporting evidence.

• Steps for writing a research paper conclusion

Many writers find the conclusion the most challenging part of any research project . By following these three steps, you'll be prepared to write a conclusion that is effective and concise.

• Step 1: Restate the problem

Always begin by restating the research problem in the conclusion of a research paper. This serves to remind the reader of your hypothesis and refresh them on the main point of the paper. 

When restating the problem, take care to avoid using exactly the same words you employed earlier in the paper.

• Step 2: Sum up the paper

After you've restated the problem, sum up the paper by revealing your overall findings. The method for this differs slightly, depending on whether you're crafting an argumentative paper or an empirical paper.

Argumentative paper: Restate your thesis and arguments

Argumentative papers involve introducing a thesis statement early on. In crafting the conclusion for an argumentative paper, always restate the thesis, outlining the way you've developed it throughout the entire paper.

It might be appropriate to mention any counterarguments in the conclusion, so you can demonstrate how your thesis is correct or how the data best supports your main points.

Empirical paper: Summarize research findings

Empirical papers break down a series of research questions. In your conclusion, discuss the findings your research revealed, including any information that surprised you.

Be clear about the conclusions you reached, and explain whether or not you expected to arrive at these particular ones.

• Step 3: Discuss the implications of your research

Argumentative papers and empirical papers also differ in this part of a research paper conclusion. Here are some tips on crafting conclusions for argumentative and empirical papers.

Argumentative paper: Powerful closing statement

In an argumentative paper, you'll have spent a great deal of time expressing the opinions you formed after doing a significant amount of research. Make a strong closing statement in your argumentative paper's conclusion to share the significance of your work.

You can outline the next steps through a bold call to action, or restate how powerful your ideas turned out to be.

Empirical paper: Directions for future research

Empirical papers are broader in scope. They usually cover a variety of aspects and can include several points of view.

To write a good conclusion for an empirical paper, suggest the type of research that could be done in the future, including methods for further investigation or outlining ways other researchers might proceed.

If you feel your research had any limitations, even if they were outside your control, you could mention these in your conclusion.

After you finish outlining your conclusion, ask someone to read it and offer feedback. In any research project you're especially close to, it can be hard to identify problem areas. Having a close friend or someone whose opinion you value read the research paper and provide honest feedback can be invaluable. Take note of any suggested edits and consider incorporating them into your paper if they make sense.

• Things to avoid in a research paper conclusion

Keep these aspects to avoid in mind as you're writing your conclusion and refer to them after you've created an outline.

Dry summary

Writing a memorable, succinct conclusion is arguably more important than a strong introduction. Take care to avoid just rephrasing your main points, and don't fall into the trap of repeating dry facts or citations.

You can provide a new perspective for your readers to think about or contextualize your research. Either way, make the conclusion vibrant and interesting, rather than a rote recitation of your research paper’s highlights.

Clichéd or generic phrasing

Your research paper conclusion should feel fresh and inspiring. Avoid generic phrases like "to sum up" or "in conclusion." These phrases tend to be overused, especially in an academic context and might turn your readers off.

The conclusion also isn't the time to introduce colloquial phrases or informal language. Retain a professional, confident tone consistent throughout your paper’s conclusion so it feels exciting and bold.

New data or evidence

While you should present strong data throughout your paper, the conclusion isn't the place to introduce new evidence. This is because readers are engaged in actively learning as they read through the body of your paper.

By the time they reach the conclusion, they will have formed an opinion one way or the other (hopefully in your favor!). Introducing new evidence in the conclusion will only serve to surprise or frustrate your reader.

Ignoring contradictory evidence

If your research reveals contradictory evidence, don't ignore it in the conclusion. This will damage your credibility as an expert and might even serve to highlight the contradictions.

Be as transparent as possible and admit to any shortcomings in your research, but don't dwell on them for too long.

Ambiguous or unclear resolutions

The point of a research paper conclusion is to provide closure and bring all your ideas together. You should wrap up any arguments you introduced in the paper and tie up any loose ends, while demonstrating why your research and data are strong.

Use direct language in your conclusion and avoid ambiguity. Even if some of the data and sources you cite are inconclusive or contradictory, note this in your conclusion to come across as confident and trustworthy.

• Examples of research paper conclusions

Your research paper should provide a compelling close to the paper as a whole, highlighting your research and hard work. While the conclusion should represent your unique style, these examples offer a starting point:

Ultimately, the data we examined all point to the same conclusion: Encouraging a good work-life balance improves employee productivity and benefits the company overall. The research suggests that when employees feel their personal lives are valued and respected by their employers, they are more likely to be productive when at work. In addition, company turnover tends to be reduced when employees have a balance between their personal and professional lives. While additional research is required to establish ways companies can support employees in creating a stronger work-life balance, it's clear the need is there.

Social media is a primary method of communication among young people. As we've seen in the data presented, most young people in high school use a variety of social media applications at least every hour, including Instagram and Facebook. While social media is an avenue for connection with peers, research increasingly suggests that social media use correlates with body image issues. Young girls with lower self-esteem tend to use social media more often than those who don't log onto social media apps every day. As new applications continue to gain popularity, and as more high school students are given smartphones, more research will be required to measure the effects of prolonged social media use.

What are the different kinds of research paper conclusions?

There are no formal types of research paper conclusions. Ultimately, the conclusion depends on the outline of your paper and the type of research you’re presenting. While some experts note that research papers can end with a new perspective or commentary, most papers should conclude with a combination of both. The most important aspect of a good research paper conclusion is that it accurately represents the body of the paper.

Can I present new arguments in my research paper conclusion?

Research paper conclusions are not the place to introduce new data or arguments. The body of your paper is where you should share research and insights, where the reader is actively absorbing the content. By the time a reader reaches the conclusion of the research paper, they should have formed their opinion. Introducing new arguments in the conclusion can take a reader by surprise, and not in a positive way. It might also serve to frustrate readers.

How long should a research paper conclusion be?

There's no set length for a research paper conclusion. However, it's a good idea not to run on too long, since conclusions are supposed to be succinct. A good rule of thumb is to keep your conclusion around 5 to 10 percent of the paper's total length. If your paper is 10 pages, try to keep your conclusion under one page.

What should I include in a research paper conclusion?

A good research paper conclusion should always include a sense of urgency, so the reader can see how and why the topic should matter to them. You can also note some recommended actions to help fix the problem and some obstacles they might encounter. A conclusion should also remind the reader of the thesis statement, along with the main points you covered in the paper. At the end of the conclusion, add a powerful closing statement that helps cement the paper in the mind of the reader.

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: 22 August 2024

Last updated: 5 February 2023

Last updated: 16 August 2024

Last updated: 9 March 2023

Last updated: 30 April 2024

Last updated: 12 December 2023

Last updated: 11 March 2024

Last updated: 4 July 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, log in or sign up.

Get started for free

How to Write a Conclusion for Research Papers (with Examples)

The conclusion of a research paper is a crucial section that plays a significant role in the overall impact and effectiveness of your research paper. However, this is also the section that typically receives less attention compared to the introduction and the body of the paper. The conclusion serves to provide a concise summary of the key findings, their significance, their implications, and a sense of closure to the study. Discussing how can the findings be applied in real-world scenarios or inform policy, practice, or decision-making is especially valuable to practitioners and policymakers. The research paper conclusion also provides researchers with clear insights and valuable information for their own work, which they can then build on and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

The research paper conclusion should explain the significance of your findings within the broader context of your field. It restates how your results contribute to the existing body of knowledge and whether they confirm or challenge existing theories or hypotheses. Also, by identifying unanswered questions or areas requiring further investigation, your awareness of the broader research landscape can be demonstrated.

Remember to tailor the research paper conclusion to the specific needs and interests of your intended audience, which may include researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or a combination of these.

Table of Contents

What is a conclusion in a research paper, summarizing conclusion, editorial conclusion, externalizing conclusion, importance of a good research paper conclusion, how to write a conclusion for your research paper, research paper conclusion examples.

• How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal? 

Frequently Asked Questions

A conclusion in a research paper is the final section where you summarize and wrap up your research, presenting the key findings and insights derived from your study. The research paper conclusion is not the place to introduce new information or data that was not discussed in the main body of the paper. When working on how to conclude a research paper, remember to stick to summarizing and interpreting existing content. The research paper conclusion serves the following purposes: 1

• Warn readers of the possible consequences of not attending to the problem.
• Recommend specific course(s) of action.
• Restate key ideas to drive home the ultimate point of your research paper.
• Provide a “take-home” message that you want the readers to remember about your study.

Types of conclusions for research papers

In research papers, the conclusion provides closure to the reader. The type of research paper conclusion you choose depends on the nature of your study, your goals, and your target audience. I provide you with three common types of conclusions:

A summarizing conclusion is the most common type of conclusion in research papers. It involves summarizing the main points, reiterating the research question, and restating the significance of the findings. This common type of research paper conclusion is used across different disciplines.

An editorial conclusion is less common but can be used in research papers that are focused on proposing or advocating for a particular viewpoint or policy. It involves presenting a strong editorial or opinion based on the research findings and offering recommendations or calls to action.

An externalizing conclusion is a type of conclusion that extends the research beyond the scope of the paper by suggesting potential future research directions or discussing the broader implications of the findings. This type of conclusion is often used in more theoretical or exploratory research papers.

Align your conclusion’s tone with the rest of your research paper. Start Writing with Paperpal Now!  

The conclusion in a research paper serves several important purposes:

• Offers Implications and Recommendations : Your research paper conclusion is an excellent place to discuss the broader implications of your research and suggest potential areas for further study. It’s also an opportunity to offer practical recommendations based on your findings.
• Provides Closure : A good research paper conclusion provides a sense of closure to your paper. It should leave the reader with a feeling that they have reached the end of a well-structured and thought-provoking research project.
• Leaves a Lasting Impression : Writing a well-crafted research paper conclusion leaves a lasting impression on your readers. It’s your final opportunity to leave them with a new idea, a call to action, or a memorable quote.

Writing a strong conclusion for your research paper is essential to leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you create and know what to put in the conclusion of a research paper: 2

• Research Statement : Begin your research paper conclusion by restating your research statement. This reminds the reader of the main point you’ve been trying to prove throughout your paper. Keep it concise and clear.
• Key Points : Summarize the main arguments and key points you’ve made in your paper. Avoid introducing new information in the research paper conclusion. Instead, provide a concise overview of what you’ve discussed in the body of your paper.
• Address the Research Questions : If your research paper is based on specific research questions or hypotheses, briefly address whether you’ve answered them or achieved your research goals. Discuss the significance of your findings in this context.
• Significance : Highlight the importance of your research and its relevance in the broader context. Explain why your findings matter and how they contribute to the existing knowledge in your field.
• Implications : Explore the practical or theoretical implications of your research. How might your findings impact future research, policy, or real-world applications? Consider the “so what?” question.
• Future Research : Offer suggestions for future research in your area. What questions or aspects remain unanswered or warrant further investigation? This shows that your work opens the door for future exploration.
• Closing Thought : Conclude your research paper conclusion with a thought-provoking or memorable statement. This can leave a lasting impression on your readers and wrap up your paper effectively. Avoid introducing new information or arguments here.
• Proofread and Revise : Carefully proofread your conclusion for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Ensure that your ideas flow smoothly and that your conclusion is coherent and well-structured.

Write your research paper conclusion 2x faster with Paperpal. Try it now!

Remember that a well-crafted research paper conclusion is a reflection of the strength of your research and your ability to communicate its significance effectively. It should leave a lasting impression on your readers and tie together all the threads of your paper. Now you know how to start the conclusion of a research paper and what elements to include to make it impactful, let’s look at a research paper conclusion sample.

How to write a research paper conclusion with Paperpal?

A research paper conclusion is not just a summary of your study, but a synthesis of the key findings that ties the research together and places it in a broader context. A research paper conclusion should be concise, typically around one paragraph in length. However, some complex topics may require a longer conclusion to ensure the reader is left with a clear understanding of the study’s significance. Paperpal, an AI writing assistant trusted by over 800,000 academics globally, can help you write a well-structured conclusion for your research paper. 

• Sign Up or Log In: Create a new Paperpal account or login with your details.  
• Navigate to Features : Once logged in, head over to the features’ side navigation pane. Click on Templates and you’ll find a suite of generative AI features to help you write better, faster.  
• Generate an outline: Under Templates, select ‘Outlines’. Choose ‘Research article’ as your document type.  
• Select your section: Since you’re focusing on the conclusion, select this section when prompted.  
• Choose your field of study: Identifying your field of study allows Paperpal to provide more targeted suggestions, ensuring the relevance of your conclusion to your specific area of research. 
• Provide a brief description of your study: Enter details about your research topic and findings. This information helps Paperpal generate a tailored outline that aligns with your paper’s content. 
• Generate the conclusion outline: After entering all necessary details, click on ‘generate’. Paperpal will then create a structured outline for your conclusion, to help you start writing and build upon the outline.  
• Write your conclusion: Use the generated outline to build your conclusion. The outline serves as a guide, ensuring you cover all critical aspects of a strong conclusion, from summarizing key findings to highlighting the research’s implications. 
• Refine and enhance: Paperpal’s ‘Make Academic’ feature can be particularly useful in the final stages. Select any paragraph of your conclusion and use this feature to elevate the academic tone, ensuring your writing is aligned to the academic journal standards. 

By following these steps, Paperpal not only simplifies the process of writing a research paper conclusion but also ensures it is impactful, concise, and aligned with academic standards. Sign up with Paperpal today and write your research paper conclusion 2x faster .  

The research paper conclusion is a crucial part of your paper as it provides the final opportunity to leave a strong impression on your readers. In the research paper conclusion, summarize the main points of your research paper by restating your research statement, highlighting the most important findings, addressing the research questions or objectives, explaining the broader context of the study, discussing the significance of your findings, providing recommendations if applicable, and emphasizing the takeaway message. The main purpose of the conclusion is to remind the reader of the main point or argument of your paper and to provide a clear and concise summary of the key findings and their implications. All these elements should feature on your list of what to put in the conclusion of a research paper to create a strong final statement for your work.

A strong conclusion is a critical component of a research paper, as it provides an opportunity to wrap up your arguments, reiterate your main points, and leave a lasting impression on your readers. Here are the key elements of a strong research paper conclusion: 1. Conciseness : A research paper conclusion should be concise and to the point. It should not introduce new information or ideas that were not discussed in the body of the paper. 2. Summarization : The research paper conclusion should be comprehensive enough to give the reader a clear understanding of the research’s main contributions. 3 . Relevance : Ensure that the information included in the research paper conclusion is directly relevant to the research paper’s main topic and objectives; avoid unnecessary details. 4 . Connection to the Introduction : A well-structured research paper conclusion often revisits the key points made in the introduction and shows how the research has addressed the initial questions or objectives. 5. Emphasis : Highlight the significance and implications of your research. Why is your study important? What are the broader implications or applications of your findings? 6 . Call to Action : Include a call to action or a recommendation for future research or action based on your findings.

The length of a research paper conclusion can vary depending on several factors, including the overall length of the paper, the complexity of the research, and the specific journal requirements. While there is no strict rule for the length of a conclusion, but it’s generally advisable to keep it relatively short. A typical research paper conclusion might be around 5-10% of the paper’s total length. For example, if your paper is 10 pages long, the conclusion might be roughly half a page to one page in length.

In general, you do not need to include citations in the research paper conclusion. Citations are typically reserved for the body of the paper to support your arguments and provide evidence for your claims. However, there may be some exceptions to this rule: 1. If you are drawing a direct quote or paraphrasing a specific source in your research paper conclusion, you should include a citation to give proper credit to the original author. 2. If your conclusion refers to or discusses specific research, data, or sources that are crucial to the overall argument, citations can be included to reinforce your conclusion’s validity.

The conclusion of a research paper serves several important purposes: 1. Summarize the Key Points 2. Reinforce the Main Argument 3. Provide Closure 4. Offer Insights or Implications 5. Engage the Reader. 6. Reflect on Limitations

Remember that the primary purpose of the research paper conclusion is to leave a lasting impression on the reader, reinforcing the key points and providing closure to your research. It’s often the last part of the paper that the reader will see, so it should be strong and well-crafted.

• Makar, G., Foltz, C., Lendner, M., & Vaccaro, A. R. (2018). How to write effective discussion and conclusion sections. Clinical spine surgery, 31(8), 345-346.
• Bunton, D. (2005). The structure of PhD conclusion chapters.  Journal of English for academic purposes ,  4 (3), 207-224.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.  

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.  

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!  

Related Reads:

• 5 Reasons for Rejection After Peer Review
• Ethical Research Practices For Research with Human Subjects

7 Ways to Improve Your Academic Writing Process

• Paraphrasing in Academic Writing: Answering Top Author Queries

Preflight For Editorial Desk: The Perfect Hybrid (AI + Human) Assistance Against Compromised Manuscripts

You may also like, how to cite in apa format (7th edition):..., how to write your research paper in apa..., how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write a phd research proposal, how to write an academic paragraph (step-by-step guide), research funding basics: what should a grant proposal..., how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to write the first draft of a..., mla works cited page: format, template & examples.

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide

Published on October 30, 2022 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on April 13, 2023.

• Restate the problem statement addressed in the paper
• Summarize your overall arguments or findings
• Suggest the key takeaways from your paper

The content of the conclusion varies depending on whether your paper presents the results of original empirical research or constructs an argument through engagement with sources .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Step 1: restate the problem, step 2: sum up the paper, step 3: discuss the implications, research paper conclusion examples, frequently asked questions about research paper conclusions.

The first task of your conclusion is to remind the reader of your research problem . You will have discussed this problem in depth throughout the body, but now the point is to zoom back out from the details to the bigger picture.

While you are restating a problem you’ve already introduced, you should avoid phrasing it identically to how it appeared in the introduction . Ideally, you’ll find a novel way to circle back to the problem from the more detailed ideas discussed in the body.

For example, an argumentative paper advocating new measures to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture might restate its problem as follows:

Meanwhile, an empirical paper studying the relationship of Instagram use with body image issues might present its problem like this:

“In conclusion …”

Avoid starting your conclusion with phrases like “In conclusion” or “To conclude,” as this can come across as too obvious and make your writing seem unsophisticated. The content and placement of your conclusion should make its function clear without the need for additional signposting.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Having zoomed back in on the problem, it’s time to summarize how the body of the paper went about addressing it, and what conclusions this approach led to.

Depending on the nature of your research paper, this might mean restating your thesis and arguments, or summarizing your overall findings.

Argumentative paper: Restate your thesis and arguments

In an argumentative paper, you will have presented a thesis statement in your introduction, expressing the overall claim your paper argues for. In the conclusion, you should restate the thesis and show how it has been developed through the body of the paper.

Briefly summarize the key arguments made in the body, showing how each of them contributes to proving your thesis. You may also mention any counterarguments you addressed, emphasizing why your thesis holds up against them, particularly if your argument is a controversial one.

Don’t go into the details of your evidence or present new ideas; focus on outlining in broad strokes the argument you have made.

Empirical paper: Summarize your findings

In an empirical paper, this is the time to summarize your key findings. Don’t go into great detail here (you will have presented your in-depth results and discussion already), but do clearly express the answers to the research questions you investigated.

Describe your main findings, even if they weren’t necessarily the ones you expected or hoped for, and explain the overall conclusion they led you to.

Having summed up your key arguments or findings, the conclusion ends by considering the broader implications of your research. This means expressing the key takeaways, practical or theoretical, from your paper—often in the form of a call for action or suggestions for future research.

Argumentative paper: Strong closing statement

An argumentative paper generally ends with a strong closing statement. In the case of a practical argument, make a call for action: What actions do you think should be taken by the people or organizations concerned in response to your argument?

If your topic is more theoretical and unsuitable for a call for action, your closing statement should express the significance of your argument—for example, in proposing a new understanding of a topic or laying the groundwork for future research.

Empirical paper: Future research directions

In a more empirical paper, you can close by either making recommendations for practice (for example, in clinical or policy papers), or suggesting directions for future research.

Whatever the scope of your own research, there will always be room for further investigation of related topics, and you’ll often discover new questions and problems during the research process .

Finish your paper on a forward-looking note by suggesting how you or other researchers might build on this topic in the future and address any limitations of the current paper.

Full examples of research paper conclusions are shown in the tabs below: one for an argumentative paper, the other for an empirical paper.

• Argumentative paper
• Empirical paper

While the role of cattle in climate change is by now common knowledge, countries like the Netherlands continually fail to confront this issue with the urgency it deserves. The evidence is clear: To create a truly futureproof agricultural sector, Dutch farmers must be incentivized to transition from livestock farming to sustainable vegetable farming. As well as dramatically lowering emissions, plant-based agriculture, if approached in the right way, can produce more food with less land, providing opportunities for nature regeneration areas that will themselves contribute to climate targets. Although this approach would have economic ramifications, from a long-term perspective, it would represent a significant step towards a more sustainable and resilient national economy. Transitioning to sustainable vegetable farming will make the Netherlands greener and healthier, setting an example for other European governments. Farmers, policymakers, and consumers must focus on the future, not just on their own short-term interests, and work to implement this transition now.

As social media becomes increasingly central to young people’s everyday lives, it is important to understand how different platforms affect their developing self-conception. By testing the effect of daily Instagram use among teenage girls, this study established that highly visual social media does indeed have a significant effect on body image concerns, with a strong correlation between the amount of time spent on the platform and participants’ self-reported dissatisfaction with their appearance. However, the strength of this effect was moderated by pre-test self-esteem ratings: Participants with higher self-esteem were less likely to experience an increase in body image concerns after using Instagram. This suggests that, while Instagram does impact body image, it is also important to consider the wider social and psychological context in which this usage occurs: Teenagers who are already predisposed to self-esteem issues may be at greater risk of experiencing negative effects. Future research into Instagram and other highly visual social media should focus on establishing a clearer picture of how self-esteem and related constructs influence young people’s experiences of these platforms. Furthermore, while this experiment measured Instagram usage in terms of time spent on the platform, observational studies are required to gain more insight into different patterns of usage—to investigate, for instance, whether active posting is associated with different effects than passive consumption of social media content.

If you’re unsure about the conclusion, it can be helpful to ask a friend or fellow student to read your conclusion and summarize the main takeaways.

• Do they understand from your conclusion what your research was about?
• Are they able to summarize the implications of your findings?
• Can they answer your research question based on your conclusion?

You can also get an expert to proofread and feedback your paper with a paper editing service .

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

The conclusion of a research paper has several key elements you should make sure to include:

• A restatement of the research problem
• A summary of your key arguments and/or findings
• A short discussion of the implications of your research

No, it’s not appropriate to present new arguments or evidence in the conclusion . While you might be tempted to save a striking argument for last, research papers follow a more formal structure than this.

All your findings and arguments should be presented in the body of the text (more specifically in the results and discussion sections if you are following a scientific structure). The conclusion is meant to summarize and reflect on the evidence and arguments you have already presented, not introduce new ones.

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.

Caulfield, J. (2023, April 13). Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide. Scribbr. Retrieved August 31, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/research-paper/research-paper-conclusion/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, writing a research paper introduction | step-by-step guide, how to create a structured research paper outline | example, checklist: writing a great research paper, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

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

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

Home Market Research

Types of Interviews in Research and Methods

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

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

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

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

LEARN ABOUT: telephone survey

What is An Interview?

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

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

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

Fundamental Types of Interviews in Research

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

1. Structured Interviews:

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

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

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

LEARN ABOUT: Research Process Steps

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

Example of a structured interview question:

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

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

Advantages of structured interviews:

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

Disadvantages of structured interviews:

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

Learn more: Market Research

2. Semi-Structured Types of Interviews:

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

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

Example of a semi-structured interview question:

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

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

Advantages of semi-structured interviews:

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

Learn more: Quantitative Data

Disadvantages of semi-structured interviews:

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

3. Unstructured Interviews:

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

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

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

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

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

Example of an unstructured interview question:

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

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

Advantages of Unstructured Interviews:

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

Disadvantages of Unstructured Interviews:

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

Learn more: Qualitative Market Research & Qualitative Data Collection

Other Types of Interviews

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

Behavioral Interview

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

Panel Interview

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

Group Types of Interviews

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

Case Interview

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

Technical Interview

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

Stress Interview

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

Methods of Research Interviews:

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

Personal Interviews:

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

Telephonic Type of Interviews:

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

Advantages:

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

Learn More: Data Collection Methods: Types & Examples

Email or Web Page Types of Interviews:

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

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

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

Advantages of email surveys:

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

Disadvantages of email survey:

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

What to Avoid in Different Types of Interviews

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

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

Related Questions of Interviews

After the interview is over, you might also get a chance to ask some questions. You should make the most of this chance to learn useful things from the interviewer. Based on what you’ve learned, you can then decide if the company and the job are a good fit for you. You can ask the interviewer questions about the company or about the job role.

Here are some common but important questions to ask in an interview:

• What do you anticipate from team members in this role?
• What does a typical day look like for an employee in this role?
• What qualities are essential for success in this position?
• How is success measured for this position?
• How does this job profile relate to the organization’s overarching objectives?
• What are your company’s guiding principles?
• Which departments will I work closely with throughout my time in this profile?

Learn more: Quantitative Research

To summarize the discussion, an effective interview will be one that provides researchers with the necessary data to know the object of study and that this information is applicable to the decisions researchers make.

Undoubtedly, the objective of the research will set the pattern of what types of interviews are best for data collection. Based on the research design , a researcher can plan and test the questions, for instance, if the questions are correct and if the survey flows in the best way.

LEARN ABOUT: Best Data Collection Tools

In addition, other types of research can be used under specific circumstances.

For example, there are no connections or adverse situations to carry out surveyors. In these types of occasions, it is necessary to conduct field research, which can not be considered an interview if not rather a completely different methodology.

QuestionPro is a flexible online survey platform that can help researchers do different kinds of interviews, like structured, semi-structured, unstructured, phone interview, group interview, etc. It gives researchers a flexible platform that can be changed to fit their needs and the needs of their research project.

QuestionPro can help researchers get detailed and useful information from participants using features like skip logic, piping, and live chat. Also, the platform is easy to use and get to, making it a useful tool for researchers to use in their work.

LEARN ABOUT: Candidate Experience Survey

Overall, QuestionPro can be helpful for researchers who want to do good interviews and collect good project data.

LEARN MORE         FREE TRIAL

The 3 main types of interviews are 1. Structured interviews 2. Semi-structured interviews 3. Unstructured interviews

There are different ways to conduct an interview, and each one can add depth and substance to the information the interviewer gathers by asking questions. We discuss four interview methods: situational, professional behavior profiling, stress, and behavioral.

Face-to-face means in-person interviews are the most common type of interview. It’s about getting a good sense of the candidate by focusing on them directly. But it also allows the person interviewed to talk freely and ask questions.

Personal interviews, phone interviews, email or web page interviews, and a combination of these methods are the four types of research interviews.

MORE LIKE THIS

Why You Should Attend XDAY 2024

Aug 30, 2024

Alchemer vs Qualtrics: Find out which one you should choose

Target Population: What It Is + Strategies for Targeting

Aug 29, 2024

Microsoft Customer Voice vs QuestionPro: Choosing the Best

Other categories.

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
• Uncategorized
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 30.8.2024 in Vol 26 (2024)

Assessing the Feasibility and Acceptability of Smart Speakers in Behavioral Intervention Research With Older Adults: Mixed Methods Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Kelly Quinn 1 , MBA, MSLIS, PhD   ; 
• Sarah Leiser Ransom 1 , MA   ; 
• Carrie O'Connell 1 , MA   ; 
• Naoko Muramatsu 2 , PhD   ; 
• David X Marquez 3 , PhD   ; 
• Jessie Chin 4 , PhD  

1 Department of Communication, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

2 Division of Community Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

3 Department of Kinesiology and Nutrition, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States

4 School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States

Corresponding Author:

Kelly Quinn, MBA, MSLIS, PhD

Department of Communication

University of Illinois Chicago

1007 W Harrison St

1140 BSB, MC 132

Chicago, IL, 60607

United States

Phone: 1 312 996 3187

Email: [email protected]

Background: Smart speakers, such as Amazon’s Echo and Google’s Nest Home, combine natural language processing with a conversational interface to carry out everyday tasks, like playing music and finding information. Easy to use, they are embraced by older adults, including those with limited physical function, vision, or computer literacy. While smart speakers are increasingly used for research purposes (eg, implementing interventions and automatically recording selected research data), information on the advantages and disadvantages of using these devices for studies related to health promotion programs is limited.

Objective: This study evaluates the feasibility and acceptability of using smart speakers to deliver a physical activity (PA) program designed to help older adults enhance their physical well-being.

Methods: Community-dwelling older adults (n=18) were asked to use a custom smart speaker app to participate in an evidence-based, low-impact PA program for 10 weeks. Collected data, including measures of technology acceptance, interviews, field notes, and device logs, were analyzed using a concurrent mixed analysis approach. Technology acceptance measures were evaluated using time series ANOVAs to examine acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and intention to adopt smart speaker technology. Device logs provided evidence of interaction with and adoption of the device and the intervention. Interviews and field notes were thematically coded to triangulate the quantitative measures and further expand on factors relating to intervention fidelity.

Results: Smart speakers were found to be acceptable for administering a PA program, as participants reported that the devices were highly usable (mean 5.02, SE 0.38) and had strong intentions to continue their use (mean 5.90, SE 0.39). Factors such as the voice-user interface and engagement with the device on everyday tasks were identified as meaningful to acceptability. The feasibility of the devices for research activity, however, was mixed. Despite the participants rating the smart speakers as easy to use (mean 5.55, SE 1.16), functional and technical factors, such as Wi-Fi connectivity and appropriate command phrasing, required the provision of additional support resources to participants and potentially impaired intervention fidelity.

Conclusions: Smart speakers present an acceptable and appropriate behavioral intervention technology for PA programs directed at older adults but entail additional requirements for resource planning, technical support, and troubleshooting to ensure their feasibility for the research context and for fidelity of the intervention.

Introduction

The use of behavioral intervention technologies (BITs) in research has proven to be feasible and efficacious in a wide variety of settings [ 1 ], extending the range of research into new geographies and populations that were previously difficult to reach and by providing new media with which to develop and deliver interventions and record data [ 2 ]. Advances in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics have created a new class of technologies that can be used for these purposes. Powered by artificial intelligence and made accessible through voice user interfaces (VUIs), smart speakers or voice-activated personal assistants, such as Amazon’s Alexa and Google’s Nest Home, are widely available and readily acceptable to older adults [ 3 ]. Because of their utility and features, smart speaker technologies have become a focal point in gerontological and health research [ 4 , 5 ]. While attention has been placed on the use of websites, software, mobile apps, and sensors as intervention delivery mechanisms [ 6 ], less attention has been placed on the use of smart speakers as a BIT, especially for older adult populations [ 5 ].

Hermes et al [ 7 ] argue that BITs hold unique characteristics that should be evaluated distinctly as part of traditional implementation outcomes, with an emphasis placed on the evaluation of BIT at the consumer or participant level for factors such as acceptability and adoption. We further argue that BITs often comprise both a delivery technology, such as a smart speaker, and an underlying software application, which is the intervention itself. By conducting independent evaluations of intervention hardware and delivery technology and intervention software applications, a more accurate evaluation of implementation outcomes can be made.

This article aims to report on the acceptability and feasibility of using smart speakers to deliver an in-home physical activity (PA) intervention among a sample of older adults aged ≥65 years. Using data collected from surveys and interviews, along with researcher field notes and device logs, we focus on the evaluation of the smart speaker device, and not the intervention application, as a BIT delivery mechanism in a 10-week pilot study that used Google Nest Home Mini smart speakers. The contribution of this study is 2-fold. First, it examines the feasibility and acceptability of smart speakers as an emerging component of BIT delivery systems, independently of an intervention assessment. Second, it examines the appropriateness of smart speaker technology for use in PA interventions for older adults.

Smart Speaker Basics

Smart speakers use a VUI to aid users in navigating everyday tasks, such as finding information, scheduling events, setting timers and alarms, and playing media [ 8 , 9 ]. The VUI language processing system, also called a voice assistant or conversational agent, is the defining characteristic of the smart speaker. To accomplish tasks by voice, smart speakers integrate several different technologies into a single device to leverage dialogue capabilities: these include subsystems for voice recognition, natural language processing (understanding and generation), and cloud-based data processing. Typically activated using a wake word or phrase, such as “Hey Google” or “Alexa,” smart speakers remain in a state of ambient listening or are always “on,” waiting for the users to initiate a conversation or command. Energy-efficient processors passively process, or “listen,” for the wake word, buffering and rerecording within the device without transmitting or storing any information [ 10 ].

As illustrated in Figure 1 , once a wake word is detected, the device is triggered to begin actively recording [ 11 ], transmitting recorded requests to the device maker’s cloud-based service to decipher users’ speech [ 12 ]. Cloud-based data processing and storage alleviates the need for the device to be capable of speech recognition [ 11 ] or file storage [ 13 ], and data are transmitted seamlessly between the device and the cloud. The audio transmission is deciphered into commands using a natural language processing algorithm, and an appropriate response is generated using speech synthesis, then sent back to the smart speaker to be conveyed to the user [ 12 , 14 ].

To enhance device utility, most platforms like Google and Amazon encourage personalization of the activities that can be performed on their devices. Users are urged to create user and voice profiles and to share personal information like home and work addresses, credit card numbers, calendars, account logins, transportation modes, and nicknames. This information is then used to streamline activities that can be facilitated through the device, such as purchasing items, setting calendar reminders, and generating shopping lists. In another form of customization, Google and Amazon provide developers the ability to build and market add-on applications called skills (for Amazon’s Alexa) and actions (for Google Assistant), which augment available native applications. These custom actions can be designed to support research activities by recording data, supporting intervention activities, or reminding participants to pursue specific actions.

Older Adults and Technology Acceptance

Technology has become increasingly important to everyday life, yet older adults can often trail behind in the adoption of new technology because of limited experience and a lack of necessary skills [ 15 , 16 ]. While age-related gaps in internet use narrowed significantly since the pandemic, older adults still lag behind other age groups in both use and access to broadband connections, as compared with those in younger age groups [ 17 , 18 ]. In part, this may be due to experience with technology in the workplace [ 19 ], but declines in physical and cognitive abilities and limitations in the performance of instrumental activities of daily living may also lead to decreased use [ 20 , 21 ]. Although the use of technology by older persons can often enhance perceptions of life quality [ 22 , 23 ], socioeconomic factors, such as lower income and education levels, compound age-related differences [ 24 ].

VUIs represent a class of technologies that are readily accepted by older adults and perceived as easier to learn and use than keyboard interfaces [ 3 , 25 , 26 ]. Because VUIs do not rely on vision or touch, they are accessible to those with visual or fine motor degradation, mobility impairment, and disability [ 27 ]. In addition, older adult users often build companionship with VUIs, which results in positive experiences that may not only lead to reduced loneliness and increased independence [ 28 ] but also may help to overcome frustration with technological errors [ 29 ]. Processes of technology acceptance by older adults often reflect the dynamics of technology adoption and use described by the Technology Acceptance Model and its derivatives [ 30 ], including the widely accepted Unified Theory of the Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model [ 31 ].

Older Adults and PA

The health benefits of PA for older adults are well documented [ 32 ], and its importance in supporting healthy aging cannot be overstated. PA slows age-related declines in functional abilities and helps to maintain physical and mental capacities in such diverse areas as muscle strength, cognitive functioning, disease prevention, and anxiety and depression reduction [ 33 ]. Despite these benefits, older adults report high levels of sedentary behavior [ 34 ]. Environmental contexts, such as weather, accessibility because of distance, and cost and affordability, are cited as factors by older adults for not being physically active [ 35 ]. It is often challenging for older adults to adopt and adhere to a PA regimen [ 36 , 37 ], and mobility challenges sometimes limit the ability to regularly participate in community-based programs because of accessibility issues [ 38 ].

Behavioral interventions to increase PA among older persons are largely successful in increasing levels of PA, and studies have shown that older individuals are more likely to continue PA programs in home-based settings [ 39 , 40 ]. Internet-based PA programs are both cost-efficient [ 41 ] and effective in producing behavioral change [ 42 ], and home-based programs have better adherence rates than community-based programs [ 40 ]. Technology-based interventions have been effective in producing a change in PA behaviors when compared with traditional mechanisms, such as usual care, minimal contact, waitlist control groups, in-person, or other nontechnology interventions [ 43 ]. Taken together, these factors suggest that a home-based PA program facilitated by technology, such as a smart speaker, could support the PA readiness of sedentary older adults. This study contributes to the extant literature by reporting on the acceptability and feasibility of smart speakers to deliver PA programming among a sedentary group of older adults.

Smart Speakers as a BIT

Smart speakers are emerging as a locus in behavioral intervention delivery systems [ 5 ]. Smart speakers can be deployed in participants’ local environments and enable interventions to be delivered remotely, thereby reducing barriers to administration and adherence. When evaluating the use of technology in implementation research, Hermes et al [ 7 ] argue that criteria used to evaluate intervention implementations [ 44 ] should be applied to BITs and the strategies used to guide their use apart from processes used to evaluate intervention implementation, as by conducted these separately a more accurate evaluation of implementation outcomes can be made.

It is relevant to note that the Hermes et al [ 7 ] approach ignores potential distinctions between an intervention mechanism, which may be a technology, such as a software program or application through which the intervention is delivered, and its underlying hardware and delivery infrastructure, which may include a device, such as an internet-enabled watch or smart speaker through which the intervention software operates, as well as the Wi-Fi or internet signal on which it is dependent. We argue that distinctions between each of these elements are important to make when evaluating the feasibility and acceptability of a BIT as well, as challenges and successes may occur with any of the components. Moreover, it is relevant to consider a participant’s ability to distinguish between these elements when undertaking this analysis to ensure appropriate identification of evaluation criteria. For example, studies on smart speakers used for general purposes have suggested that some users fail to make distinctions between the various components of service delivery, such as the voice interface and the device [ 45 , 46 ], which leads to conflation between perceptions of each element.

Five criteria in particular are recommended for evaluation from the perspectives of the participant or consumer and providers or researchers [ 7 , 44 ]:

• Acceptability, or the extent to which a technology is useful or satisfactory.
• Adoption, or the intention to use the technology.
• Appropriateness, or perception that the technology fits, is relevant or compatible with the context of its use.
• Feasibility, or the extent to which a technology can be successfully used in a specific context.
• Fidelity, or evidence that technology can be delivered as intended.

When evaluating a BIT at the level of the consumer or research participant, the outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and adoption are most commonly measured through models of technology adoption [ 7 ]. The UTAUT model [ 31 ] is one of the most widely used theories of technology adoption [ 47 ], connecting the concepts of acceptability and feasibility to a third important criterion from the user’s perspective: adoption. UTAUT argues that a causal relationship exists between users’ perceptions of technology and their intention to use it. It specifically identifies 4 constructs—expectations of a technology’s performance, the ease with which it can be used, social influence, and facilitating conditions—and links these to a user’s intention to use a particular technology, which, in turn, is strongly correlated with its use. UTAUT subscales regarding performance and effort expectancy have been proven reliable with respect to the use of a wide variety of technologies in older adult populations, including email and social media [ 48 ], tablet computers [ 49 ], and remote health care or telehealth applications [ 50 ].

Studies on older adults’ use of technology have found that expectations of a technology’s performance and perceptions of the amount of effort that will be required to use technology are powerful incentives for new technology adoption [ 51 , 52 ]. Although the feasibility of using smart speakers among older adult populations to improve well-being has been examined in several recent studies [ 25 , 28 , 53 ], their use to explore specific interventions is more limited, especially among older adult populations.

Study Design

Participants were engaged in a 10-week, evidence-based, internet-based PA program that used artificial intelligence to guide activities from October 2020 through January 2022. Of note, the time frame of the study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent lockdowns. Because all in-person leisure activities had ceased, the use of alternative delivery mechanisms for exercise programming, such as smart speakers, was potentially attractive. Though the study had been initially designed and planned to include an in-person orientation to the smart speaker and PA application, the pandemic necessitated that all participant interactions be carried out in a virtual context because of the particularly vulnerable nature of the target population. Consequently, all participant interactions, including onboarding and offboarding, weekly check-ins, and interviews, were conducted remotely via Zoom when possible and alternatively via phone calls.

A PA application was developed by the research team to run on Google Nest Home Mini speakers, which replicated components of the Healthy Moves for Aging Well program [ 54 ]. A description of the activities included in the PA application can be found in Multimedia Appendix 1 . Initial feasibility and acceptance of the PA application were validated in a pilot user study before field deployment [ 39 ].

To ensure that participants had internet access, we distributed Wi-Fi hot spots together with the smart speakers. The hot spots also enabled the research team to perform the initial speaker setup and installation of the PA application before the first session. This simplified the orientation process for participants, as the devices merely needed to be connected to power for participant use.

Recruitment was aided by a partner senior-living organization located in a large suburban Midwestern county, which disseminated recruitment materials to both their independent living facility residents and via community programming information channels. The research team consisted of 4 individuals (1 principal investigator and 3 graduate research assistants, all adult women), certified by the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative Program [ 55 ]. The study design is illustrated in Figure 2 .

After enrollment, participants were sent a parcel containing written instructions regarding the use of the smart speaker, PA program application, and Wi-Fi hotspot; a smart speaker; a Wi-Fi hot spot for in-home internet connection diary materials; and consent documents. Initial participant meetings were conducted by phone or Zoom, during which baseline PA and technology attitude measures were taken, and verbal instructions were shared on using the smart speaker, PA app, and Wi-Fi hotspot. Participants were randomly assigned to a research team member who assisted with equipment setup and conducted all interviews and weekly check-ins throughout the intervention. Functionally, this meant that each researcher worked with the same 5 to 6 individuals throughout the study. At baseline (T0), participants took part in a brief individual motivational coaching session to determine their PA goals.

The intervention then took place in 2 phases. During phase 1, which lasted 6 weeks, participants were encouraged to use the smart speakers for their purposes (eg, answering questions, playing media, setting timers or alarms), as well as use the PA application for a minimum of 3 sessions per week. Participants were contacted weekly by phone by a trained member of the research team during this phase to troubleshoot, assess PA goal achievement, and set new PA goals for the coming week. Phase 2 lasted 4 weeks, during which participants continued natural use of the smart speaker and the PA application on their own (ie, without weekly contact).

Assessments of the participants’ perceptions of technology acceptability, prior technology experience, and attitudes toward technology were administered by the researchers at 3 points in the study: T0, 6 weeks and end of phase 1 (T1), and 10 weeks and end of phase 2 (T2). Semistructured interviews provided perceptions and use of the smart speakers and the PA application at T1 and T2. Device logs were maintained and reviewed for the entire study period. Participants were compensated after each interview (T0, T1, and T2) and received a completion bonus for completing all visits.

Ethical Considerations

The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC Protocol 2019-1013), which reviews and approves human subjects research in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report and the DHHS regulations 45 CFR Part 46. All procedures were carried out as specified in the study protocol. All participants provided oral acknowledgment of informed consent, as a written acknowledgment requirement was waived because of the conditions of the pandemic. All data were deidentified before analysis. Participants were compensated up to US $100 for time spent and were able to keep their smart speaker device on the study’s conclusion. The reporting of the qualitative findings follows the guidelines outlined in the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research [ 56 ] for reporting health-related studies, as appropriate.

Data Sources

Measures of technology acceptability and feasibility.

Researchers administered a questionnaire with quantitative measures of familiarity with technology, UTAUT, perceived sociability, and social presence during the participant interviews at T0, T1, and T2. The UTAUT subscales consisted of 30 items related to performance expectancy, effort expectancy, attitudes toward technology, social influence, facilitating conditions, smart speaker self-efficacy, anxiety, and behavioral intention to use smart speakers, measured on a 7-point scale and adapted to the context of smart speakers [ 31 , 39 ]. Four items were used to measure the perceived sociability of smart speakers, and 5 items assessed the social presence of smart speakers [ 57 ]. Items for each measure are listed in Multimedia Appendix 2 . To indicate technological competence in everyday living, a familiarity with technology measure was adapted from the Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire [ 58 ] regarding the frequency of use of 11 everyday technologies, such as searching the internet for information, dealing with recorded telephone menus, or sending and receiving emails [ 59 ].

Device log data were collected from the Google accounts attached to the devices; however, data from 2 (11%) of 18 participants was missing because of technical errors. The remaining (16/18, 89%) data logs were analyzed for frequency of engagement with the PA app by calculating the number of times “Healthy Moves” was activated by the participant. To avoid fatigue, the PA program application asked participants if they needed to take a break or stop the exercise activity. Consequently, because participants were able to voluntarily truncate the application, we used its activation as a measure of engagement.

Interviews and Field Notes

A total of 36 interviews were transcribed for analysis, with an average duration of 18:05 minutes for interviews at T1 and 17:06 minutes for interviews at T2. The interview guide is presented as Multimedia Appendix 3 . In addition, 90 sets of field observation notes were recorded after the weekly motivational sessions during phase 1 and examined.

Because recruitment took place during pandemic lockdowns , participants were recruited using social media postings, recruitment emails posted on listservs, and through the use of 2 research recruitment matchmaking portals. Inclusion criteria were those aged ≥65 years and who spoke English, as the smart speaker application was programmed in English. Participants were excluded if they participated in ≥150 minutes of PA per week or scored <7 correct responses on the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire [ 60 , 61 ].

A total of 24 participants were enrolled at T0. The size of the sample was largely determined by the availability of respondents and the adequacy of resources to complete the study. Because of interest in maintaining a PA regime and health complications, 4 participants did not complete the T1 interview. An additional 2 participants did not complete the T2 interview because of withdrawal from the study, so the final sample consisted of 18 individuals. The final study completion sample had an average age of 75.9 (SD 7.3) years; 15 (83%) of 18 participants were female, and 17 (94%) of 18 were White. Familiarity with technology was high among these participants, with 14 (78%) of 18 using a range of everyday technologies, such as searching the internet, using email, or sending text messages on a mobile device, on average, more than once per month. Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of both the study completion sample (n=18) and the recruited sample (n=24).

a Adapted from Everyday Technology Use Questionnaire [ 58 , 59 ].

Data were analyzed using concurrent mixed analysis [ 62 ], with log data, interview, and field note data examined for complementarity and completeness [ 63 ] to broaden and enrich the understanding of the quantitative measures of device feasibility and acceptability. Because of this choice of method, only data collected from the study completion sample were used in this analysis. SPSS (version 29) was used for repeated measures ANOVA, and MaxQDA 2022 (version 22.08.0; VERBI GmbH) was used for first-level descriptive and second-level thematic qualitative text analysis of interview and field observation data.

The coding schema for qualitative analysis of the interview and field note date was developed using a hybrid approach, with a priori codes from the UTAUT constructs comprising the initial coding structure and additional codes developed in vivo. First, a descriptive analysis of the texts was performed by a team of 2 researchers, coding approximately 9 transcripts each. Salient words and phrases were highlighted, and special attention was paid to adjectives and adverbs that added emphasis or provided a judgment of value. Next, keywords and phrases were grouped under thematic umbrellas that either aligned with the preestablished categories derived from UTAUT codes or newly identified categories that emerged during the first descriptive coding phase. The collected measures were then grouped and analyzed according to the criteria for assessing BIT [ 7 , 44 ] to provide an overall assessment of acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility. Acceptability was assessed using the UTAUT subscale of performance expectancy, along with measures of perceived sociability, pleasantness, and social presence. Adoption was measured using device log data on intervention app use and examination of the subscale on the behavioral intention to use the smart speaker. Appropriateness was evaluated using measures of attitudes toward using smart speakers and smart speaker self-efficacy. Feasibility was appraised using the UTAUT subscale of effort expectancy.

As the data analyses were conducted concurrently using mixed methods, the results are also presented concurrently. In this format, log data, interview data, and field observation data offer complementarity and completeness to the quantitative measures of acceptability and feasibility.

Acceptability

Adults in this study perceived the smart speaker as acceptable, with measures of performance expectancy (ie, perceived usefulness) to be high during the study period (T0: mean 5.81, SE 0.16; T1: mean 5.04, SE 0.31; T2: mean 5.02, SE 0.38). However, perceived usefulness decreased over time ( F 2,34 =3.66; P =.04; partial eta squared=0.18), perhaps reflecting the practicality of actual use once participants integrated the smart speakers into their everyday routines.

Participants expanded on these perceptions in the interviews, noting that specific features of the smart speaker encouraged these perceptions of utility and spurred them to engage in more frequent and routine use of the PA program. One factor they noted was that because the smart speaker was located at home, barriers to PA engagement were reduced:

Convenience. I didn’t have to go out of the home for the exercise. [Participant 8]

Its accessibility and yeah, I guess that would be it. Its accessibility. It’s right there and it’s easy to consult and makes it easier to engage in the [PA] program. [Participant 19]

The smart speaker also afforded participants time flexibility, enabling them to engage in the intervention at times that were convenient or available for them instead of a set or designated time. This time flexibility enabled them to adhere to the protocol with greater success:

I tried unsuccessfully to pick a time of day that worked the best and stick with it... In a way, it was an advantage because I could fit it in whenever it occurred to me or that I was reminded in some way. [Participant 5]

The visual and physical presence of the smart speaker device also encouraged intervention adherence for participants, as it “reminded” participants to engage in the intervention activities, which also improved adherence:

I like the fact that it reminds me, just seeing it reminds me to do it, and I don’t know what I would use in its stead. [Participant 5]

Several participants noted that the VUI interface of the smart speaker added to the device’s convenience by making it expedient to use:

I don’t have to type anything in, I can just talk to it and it gives me the quick answer that I’m looking for… I think it’s faster than the computer. Because it’s quicker to talk than for me to type it. [Participant 9]

Participants perceived the smart as being pleasant to interact with throughout the study period (T0: mean 5.89, SE 0.16; T1: mean 5.27, SE 0.31; T2: mean, 5.03, SE 0.38), but this perception decreased over time ( F 2,34 =3.63; P =.04; partial eta squared=0.18), perhaps because the novelty of interaction diminished over time. As one participant noted:

So I think it’s a novel way of getting one to focus on an exercise program like this, and to be able to look, shall we say, look forward to doing it, more than if it were simply something you were reading from a pamphlet. [Participant 13]

They also perceived low social presence of the device (T0: mean 3.82, SE 0.27; T1: mean 3.52, SE 0.34; T2: mean 3.31, SE 0.35), and the low social presence did not change over time ( F 2,34 =1.27; P =.29; partial eta squared=0.07).

Adoption of the smart speakers, or the intention to use them, was evidenced through actual use of the devices and indication by participants of a willingness to use its functionality for other purposes in addition to the PA intervention. Examination of the device log data revealed that while heterogeneity existed in the PA program engagement, the use of the devices decreased over the study period. For the first 6 weeks (phase 1), participants engaged with the intervention app <2 times per week (mean 10.19, SD 13.26; range 0-42). Activity was higher during this initial period, perhaps because of the accountability provided by the weekly check-in calls from the research team. Engagement with the intervention app dropped off significantly during the second phase of the study, with participants engaging with the intervention app approximately about once per week (mean 4.94, SD 7.85, range 0-29; F 1,15 =9.49; P =.008; partial eta squared=0.39). However, the patterns of use were heterogeneous, with some participants engaging with the device frequently and others only minimally.

About half of the participants engaged with the PA intervention less than one time per week during the intervention and follow-up phases (n=9), but other participants (n=4) were quite active, engaging with the intervention >4 times per week during phase 1, and continued engagement with intervention >2 times per week during the phase 2. The most frequent user engaged with the PA intervention every day during phase 1 and even more than once daily during phase 2. Examination of the interview data reinforced these findings and demonstrated how these 2 clusters differed. It also reinforced the understanding that as expectations of the device met user experiences, regular use of the devices was reinforced. As one participant noted:

Well, at first I just used it for the exercise program, and then I was a little bit more daring and listened to some music, and then jokes, and the weather, and timer and things like that. I became more comfortable using it more often. [Participant 1]

Conversely, when participants did not use the device with any regularity for either exercise or everyday activities, they were less likely to indicate that they would continue using it at all. The lack of engagement with the smart speaker appeared to lead to a lack of adherence to the intervention protocol:

[B]ut I’m a little distressed with myself for not even thinking of it this week, yeah. Well it didn’t seem to be too helpful to me when I was using it, I guess that’s why I forgot about this week. [Participant 2]

Participants demonstrated a strong willingness to continue using the device during and after the study period (T0: mean 6.35, SE 0.11; T1: mean 5.98, SE 0.27; T2: mean 5.90, SE 0.32), and this behavioral intention to use the device did not change over time ( F 2,34 =1.48; P =.24; partial eta squared=0.08). We note that participants who made a concentrated effort to incorporate the device into their daily routine during the study, for both exercise and other activities, demonstrated greater intention to continue using the device, even beyond the scope of the study.

Appropriateness

Appropriateness, or the perception that the technology is compatible with the context of its use, was demonstrated consistently during the study period, though these perceptions were not uniform among participants. Participants held strongly positive attitudes toward smart speakers (T0: mean 6.17, SE 0.09; T1: mean 6.07, SE 0.16; T2: mean 6.00, SE 0.18), and these perceptions were sustained throughout the study ( F 2,34 =.82; P =.45; partial eta squared=0.05). Comments about specific qualities of the smart speakers that enhanced the delivery of the PA intervention elaborated on these positive perceptions. For example, one prominent feature that was frequently mentioned by participants was the VUI. Participants found the auditory instructions provided by the smart speaker to be an appropriate mechanism to deliver the PA intervention, likening it to an individual coach or mentor:

Well, I do like the fact that even though this is not a real person, there is a voice telling you what to do. So you’re not in a gym filled with people or you’re not in a class. You don’t have to go anywhere, but someone is standing there telling you what to do or sitting there telling you what to do. And so that is a, I think for persons who say live by themself or something, it is like another voice that, I guess it’s watching a TV too, but it’s a voice that coaches you on. [Participant 24]

Other participants liked the ability just to listen and follow instructions. The simplicity of following commands enabled them to carry out the activities easily and with minimal cognitive effort:

I don’t have to think about it because I just follow whatever the directions are. When we’re doing the other exercise, I have to use the paper and I have to look at the paper. In here, you just follow the directions and you’re all set. [Participant 7]

However, the VUI may also have presented some hindrances for delivering the PA intervention. Prior work has identified that older adults may experience difficulty with constructing a structured sentence command in smart speaker use [ 29 ]. Participants in this study described how they had to “learn to talk to the device” by rephrasing questions and commands to obtain a desired response:

But every now and then on the [PA application], I think you’re supposed to answer a certain way. If he [the smart speaker voice] says, “Are you ready to go to the next exercise?” Then you go “Uh-huh.” And he’s like, “Did you hear me?” I think maybe you should know the respect that he needs because sometimes I think he doesn’t understand me and I forget to speak clearly. [Participant 11]

Participants consistently perceived that they could effectively use the smart speakers, assessing their self-efficacy in using the smart speakers quite positively (T0: mean 6.03, SE 0.12; T1: mean 5.79, SE 0.26; T2: mean 5.58, SE 0.25). However, this self-efficacy assessment dropped during the study period ( F 2,34 =1.81; P =.18; partial eta squared=0.10) as participants integrated the devices into daily routines. Self-efficacy was also demonstrated by participants’ ability to engage in intuitive workarounds for issues of communication with the smart speakers. These workarounds consisted of repeating or rephrasing commands, adjusting the speaking volume, or articulating the command more clearly:

...I don’t know whether it was the way I asked, ya know, I asked the question and the device said, “I didn’t understand the question.” So I said it a different way and then it was able to answer. [Participant 7]

Well, once in a while, I think maybe I’m not close enough to it and they will say, “I can’t understand you.” And I don’t know whose fault that is, if it’s a Mini Google device or maybe I’m not directly in front of it. But then I try again and I’m able to interact with it. [Participant 12]

However, challenges with the ability to engage with the intervention on the smart speaker may have contributed to participants’ feelings of being less proficient in using the smart speaker as the study progressed. Miscommunication issues with the device appear to be the primary hindrance and sometimes result in the participant ceasing interaction with the smart speaker or taking time away from the device before attempting interaction again. This effectively prevented the participant from carrying out the intervention at the desired or appropriate time:

Sometimes the Google device misses the mark as far as giving me exactly what I’m looking for. So I either have to rephrase what I’m asking or give up. [Participant 13]

Other participants, especially those who used the device irregularly or only for the PA application, were often discouraged when faced with these difficulties. Some participants did not seem comfortable adjusting their language or speaking style to accommodate the device and would disengage from the conversation and walk away:

[B]ut when I tried to get onto the [PA application], I tried it twice and then both times it said it wasn’t responding, but I didn’t get frustrated. I just thought, “I’m not going to do exercises today.” [Participant 1]

Feasibility

Feasibility, or the perception that smart speakers are easy to use, remained high during the study period . Participants reported that they found the smart speakers easy to use (T0: mean 5.93, SE 0.53; T1: mean 5.56, SE 1.16; T2: mean 5.55, SE 1.24), and this ease of use was sustained throughout the study ( F 2,34 =1.49; P =.24; partial eta squared=0.08). As one user summarized in the interviews:

I found it very easy to use. Very, very helpful. It got me to exercise three times a week, more than I could have without it. [Participant 1]

From the perspective of the research team, however, feasibility was not as clear cut. Examination of field note observations revealed that during the weekly contacts in phase 1, members of the research team often assisted participants in effectively using their smart speakers. Though participants reported that their devices were easy to use, researchers noted that they had made suggestions that devices be moved within the participant’s residence to improve the Wi-Fi signal (n=5) and that participants might rephrase commands to the device to gain an appropriate response (n=5), or worked with participants to adjust volume settings (n=2). In addition, researchers suggested and encouraged participants to use the device in alternate ways in addition to the PA program app (n=4), such as seeking information about the weather or setting timers and alarms. The frequency and nature of these observations suggest that providing support for using the devices was a necessary element in the research protocol and required resources from an administrative perspective, including training members of the research team in basic device functionality as well as potential troubleshooting strategies.

Wi-Fi connectivity issues were a major determinant of the problems that participants experienced. When smart speakers have difficulty maintaining a continuous internet connection, especially when deployed over Wi-Fi hotspots, they may encounter limits on bandwidth, which can impair their operation [ 64 ]. The use of Wi-Fi hotspots was a source of some of the connectivity issues experienced by participants and caused frustration in the form of longer-than-anticipated response times or interruptions in the performance of the device. These signals of connectivity issues required patience when experienced:

I would be patient. Sometimes there’s a long pause before it responds. So patience is sometimes necessary, or just repeat my request. And if I get a sense that it’s not being digested by the device, I rephrase it. [Participant 13]

The placement of the smart speaker within the participant’s residence was also a critical factor in ensuring successful interactions with the device. Prior research has identified that older adults strategically position smart speakers to shape and organize daily routines [ 65 ]. Participants frequently placed devices in the area of their residence, which they spent the most time in to optimize accessibility and convenience. Often, this meant that the smart speaker was placed in a living or family room, but the kitchen was also a popular option. However, these spaces were not always optimal for participating in the PA program intervention. As one participant noted:

Now, I’m sitting in a computer room a study. And so, a lot of times I do it [the PA program application] in here. In fact, I think I’ve been doing it in here for the last week or two, but sometimes I put it [the smart speaker] in the area where we eat, the kitchen eating area, so that if I’m working in the kitchen and I’d like to use it for a timer. So, then I, because it’s there, I ended up doing the exercises in the kitchen. [Participant 16]

Privacy considerations also play a role in device location and, again, may run counter to optimal placement for engagement with the intervention activity or a strong Wi-Fi signal. As one participant described:

My husband and I worry about the privacy issues with the Google Home Mini, and several times when I had it plugged in to prepare in order to do exercises, I would mention, “Oh, I have to Google that.” And the Google Mini would come on. And that was very disconcerting because I was in another room and it was listening. [Participant 21]

Ultimately, participants seemed to maximize the opportunity to use the smart speakers and tried to place the device in ways that would facilitate their engagement with the intervention:

I kept it right here in the living room where it was visible to me every day. If I had tucked it away somewhere, that would have been even more problematic on my part because it’s easy to forget. [Participant 5]

Fidelity, or evidence that the technology can deliver the intervention as intended, is a criterion that is perhaps best viewed from the perspective of the research team, but participants noted how the smart speaker enabled them to execute the intervention with greater precision. Participants liked the program’s routine and noted that it provided structure, including PA, in their daily routines.

I like the fact that it times you, in other words, I don’t have to keep track of the time with the clock or anything like that. I like, it just gives a little more structure so that I can rely less upon my own motivation. I would say it serves as a motivator too. [Participant 9]

In addition, some participants noted that the smart speaker introduced accountability into their engagement with the intervention, alluding to its potential to be used as a mechanism to report on activities associated with the study:

And I realized that I’m on my own time. I can do this or I don’t have to do it, but having the device makes me feel responsible that it’s kind of like big brother is watching me, and if I don’t use it, it’s going to know. [Participant 18]

Though the PA application had been tested extensively before deployment in the study, issues with its performance and interoperation with the device were encountered during both phases of the study. Participants reported that they experienced technical difficulties with the PA application, including the application not responding to them in a timely manner, aborting the intervention without warning, or repeating exercises that they had already completed. Minor modifications to the application by the development team during the study resulted in some improvements in performance, but most incidents were attributable to Wi-Fi connectivity issues, which could cause the PA program application to cease functioning and impair the fidelity of the intervention.

Participants found incidents very frustrating and for some, induced nonuse of the intervention application. As one user stated:

I tried to do it with the (PA application), but it doesn’t work right for me, so I just don’t use it then. So, I do a little exercise, but I just don’t use the Google, I just do them on my own. [Participant 20]

As this participant suggests, when encountering technical issues with the PA application, participants often maintained the exercise regimen of the study without the assistance of the smart speaker. Participants had received extensive support materials in their orientation packet, including illustrated descriptions of the activities that were invoked by the PA application. Because of these materials, several participants felt that they could complete the exercises without the guidance of the smart speakers; however, some used the functionality of the device, such as a timer, to assist in carrying out their activities:

[Participant] told me when she gets frustrated with that she will just use the Google Home [smart speaker] to set a timer and go through the exercises on her own. [Field notes, Participant 16]

Participants also appeared to be able to distinguish between the PA application and the hardware of the smart speaker when they reported the challenges they encountered. This was made clear through their use of gendered pronouns when speaking about the various components, identifying the male voice of the PA application and the female voice of the smart speaker interface, as well as specific references to the PA intervention as an “app.”

Well, there were problems with the software where it would abort and I would be shifted over to the regular Google application as opposed to the [name of PA program app]. [Participant 13]

Taken together, these last 2 points suggest that when participants’ challenges with the PA application were technical, they recognized it was a limitation of the intervention delivery mechanism and not the smart speaker or the intervention. Instead, they sometimes resorted to workarounds, such as relying on their memory to complete the exercise or using the support materials as a prompt. This underscores the importance of providing support materials to participants, not only for the delivery mechanism but also for the intervention itself.

Principal Findings

The goal of this paper was to evaluate the use of smart speakers to deliver an in-home PA intervention among a sample of older adults using previously established criteria for the evaluation of BITs. Our focus for this analysis was on the smart speaker as a delivery mechanism and not the PA intervention itself, as these are distinct components of the intervention implementation and should be evaluated separately. The smart speakers in this study were found to be highly rated for a PA program by participants regarding acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility, criteria essential to quality BITs [ 7 , 44 ]. Functional and technical factors related to the operation of the smart speakers, such as ensuring consistent Wi-Fi connectivity and ensuring participants used appropriate phrasing when interacting with the devices, created a responsibility for the research team to provide basic technical support and troubleshooting resources. In addition, these same factors possess the potential to impair the fidelity of the intervention. In short, while smart speakers provide a novel and acceptable technology for intervention research, their feasibility in a research context comes with limitations.

Smart speakers afforded participants in this study convenience and flexibility for engaging with the intervention activities and served as a visual reminder to reinforce completion of the study protocol, which improved adherence to the intervention. The VUI was well-received by participants, who noted its ease of use and appropriateness for coaching participants through a PA program. The VUI also introduced challenges for the participants, as it required them to learn how to appropriately phrase commands and adjust their speaking volume to communicate with the device. This represents an intriguing intersection of possibility and limitation. On the one hand, the benefits of the device, as articulated by most respondents, are based on its ease of use and convenience, which are associated with being a hands-free interface that is capable of responding quickly and specifically. This presents a range of possibilities for intervention-based research across health, education, and other applications for older adults [ 66 , 67 ].

By contrast, at the current stage of development, the smart speakers used for this study are not capable of accommodating a human user’s natural diction and phrasing beyond stating “I’m sorry” and requesting the user rephrase their question or direction until an acceptable rudimentary keyword or phrase is recognized. Therefore, successful accommodation to miscommunication hinges on the ability of the participant to mold their habits and language to patterns recognizable by the device. When participants were flexible about adjusting their phrasing and behaviors to mitigate technical glitches, they were also more likely to view the device favorably and use it regularly. When considering acceptability, this is particularly meaningful because the limitations of the technology and the adaptiveness of the participant base must be evaluated in tandem. Future development in artificial intelligence–supported health interventions could leverage the advancement in large language models to provide ubiquitous and fluent user experience [ 68 ].

Participants indicated their intention to use a smart speaker through positive attitudes toward its functionality, but there was a high degree of heterogeneity in their adoption. Some participants embraced the use of the devices, whereas others were frustrated and abandoned their efforts easily. Issues related to Wi-Fi connectivity were particularly challenging and interfered with the ability of the device to function appropriately. The feasibility of using smart speakers in an intervention, while positive from the participants’ perspective, was more challenging from the vantage point of the research team. To provide technical and operational support for successful device operation, members of the research team were required to be familiar with device functionality and basic troubleshooting strategies. In addition, because participants had discretion over device placement within their residence, it was more challenging to ensure that the device would be optimized for both execution of the intervention and Wi-Fi connectivity. These connectivity issues impacted intervention fidelity and underscored the need for robust support.

Overall, technical issues, such as glitches with the PA application, device-level technical problems (volume, articulation, etc), and broader critical infrastructure issues, such as a weak Wi-Fi signal, will stymie engagement with intervention activity and broader intentions to use the smart speakers. However, when participants have outlets to seek technical assistance and support when issues arise, such issues can be effectively mitigated. In other words, older adults are not at all resistant to engaging with smart speakers; however, a robust technical and informational support system should be in place.

The privacy considerations for smart speakers are not inconsequential. To be activated, smart speakers typically require an account to be established with the device maker, which is then associated with the smart speaker. Often, these accounts require additional information to be gathered from the user, such as credit card details, causing concern about personal information collection [ 69 ]. Establishing a linkage between the account and the smart speaker enables personalization of the activities that can be performed, such as reminders; however, it also associates this same information with voice recordings and device interactions [ 13 ]. Location-based data, such as time zone and zip code, allow device makers to transmit relevant information, such as weather and traffic news, but these data also become associated with accounts. All of these additional data points may increase participant privacy vulnerability.

One strategy to enhance participant privacy is to use pseudonym accounts to set up the smart speaker and collect data, as was done in this study. This approach provides some ability to shield participants’ identity, but it also reduces the functionality of smart speakers considerably, as devices are unable to be personalized for calendaring and reminding functions. This reduction in utility can be frustrating to study participants, who anticipate a level of functionality frequently advertised by device makers. However, ultimately, privacy concerns are associated with smart speaker use [ 70 ], and those who use them may be qualitatively different than the general population [ 71 ], thereby presenting a form of sample selection bias for research using the devices.

Limitations

Data analyzed in this study were collected from a relatively small, not randomly controlled sample, so the conclusions reached may not be generalizable to a wider older adult population. This study was conducted during the pandemic, which required recruitment to be carried out via the web, and interviews were conducted via telephone or Zoom. The implications of this context are 2-fold. First, this sample may have been more accepting of technology and may have had higher educational attainment than if they had been enrolled in a clinical or face-to-face setting. This might suggest that the issues highlighted with this sample may be even more pronounced with populations with lower technological proficiency or education levels and may require researchers to provide additional support resources when carrying out studies of this nature. Second, the context of the pandemic may have prompted the participants to have greater acceptance of smart speaker technology to engage with PA, as in-person activities were significantly reduced during that time. These factors also limit the generalizability of these findings as they may have introduced a positive bias to perceptions of acceptability and feasibility in this sample. To gain a greater and more nuanced understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of using smart speakers in a research context, additional studies with representative samples in a nonpandemic context are required.

Challenges encountered by participants that were related to the wireless connectivity of the smart speakers may also have influenced perceptions of the smart speaker and the intervention application. Further exploratory work is needed to distinguish how perceptions of applications can be distinguished from their related delivery mechanisms for evaluation of usability, feasibility, and efficacy. In addition, data collection was constrained because of the pandemic, which limited the ability to observe participants engaging with the smart speakers. Further work is needed to expand data collection efforts beyond self-reports, which would offer additional perspectives on the acceptability of smart speakers in intervention research and provide greater detail on evaluation criteria, such as fidelity.

Finally, interviews at T1 and T2 were only conducted with participants still enrolled in the study at those time points. While data were collected from individuals who did not adhere to the intervention, it did not include input from those individuals who did not complete the study. This factor limits the interpretability of these findings, as input from noncompleters may have included perceptions related to a lack of feasibility or acceptability of smart speakers for use in a PA program.

Conclusions

In conclusion, findings from this study found smart speakers to be acceptable and appropriate for PA intervention research involving older adults, with participants indicating a willingness to adopt these delivery mechanisms for the delivery of the intervention program as well as for their everyday use. However, the feasibility of these devices for use in research contexts was mixed as they require specific and specialized attention to technical support and troubleshooting when used with older adults. Finally, applications developed to run on smart speakers must be developed to minimize disruption, whether because of flaws in design or through careful planning related to the overall Wi-Fi infrastructure, as weakness in this capacity may impair the ability of smart speakers to deliver interventions with high fidelity.

This study contributes to intervention research in that it evaluates the acceptability and feasibility of smart speakers as a behavioral intervention delivery infrastructure or the mechanisms through which an intervention is delivered, separately and distinctively from the technology that comprises an intervention, which here was a PA program application designed to enhance the physical well-being of sedentary older adults. Conducting separate evaluations of these intervention delivery elements is necessary to ensure a thorough assessment of intervention outcomes. Results from this study highlighted that older adults perceive smart speakers to be useful and easy to use. Future studies might explore the suitability of smart speakers as a delivery infrastructure for aspects of behavioral interventions requiring smart speaker functionalities, such as the setting or reminders or the streaming of media content. Research on the use of smart speakers in other specialized populations, such as those with visual impairment or limited mobility, may also prove fruitful.

In addition, these findings offer important insight for research practitioners. At the very basic level, it cautions against oversimplifying the implications of using complex delivery infrastructures, especially with a population such as older adults that might lag the general population in the adoption and use of emerging technologies. On one level, such oversimplification may overlook important aspects of technological delivery mechanisms, such as the provision of technical support and troubleshooting, which can often tap into limited research resources. On a more granular level, the same functional and technological issues that prompt the need for support resources, such as ensuring continuous Wi-Fi connectivity, can ultimately negatively impact intervention fidelity and compromise the integrity of the research process. Taken together, smart speakers offer a novel delivery infrastructure for behavioral intervention research but also require careful planning.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the University of Illinois Chicago Center for Clinical and Translational Science; the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through grant UL1TR002003; and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health through grant R24AG064191. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Data Availability

The data sets generated during and analyzed during this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Activities of the physical activity program.

Measures of technology acceptability and feasibility.

Interview guide.

• Berkowsky RW, Czaja SJ. The use of technology in behavioral intervention research: advantages and challenges. In: Behavioral Intervention Research: Designing, Evaluating, and Implementing. Berlin, Germany. Springer; Dec 2015.
• Mohr DC, Burns MN, Schueller SM, Clarke G, Klinkman M. Behavioral intervention technologies: evidence review and recommendations for future research in mental health. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2013;35(4):332-338. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Portet F, Vacher M, Golanski C, Roux C, Meillon B. Design and evaluation of a smart home voice interface for the elderly: acceptability and objection aspects. Pers Ubiquit Comput. Oct 2, 2011;17:127-144. [ CrossRef ]
• Sunshine J. Smart speakers: the next frontier in mHealth. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 21, 2022;10(2):e28686. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Sezgin E, Militello LK, Huang Y, Lin S. A scoping review of patient-facing, behavioral health interventions with voice assistant technology targeting self-management and healthy lifestyle behaviors. Transl Behav Med. Aug 07, 2020;10(3):606-628. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Marsch L, Lord S, Dallery J. Behavioral Health Care and Technology: Using Science-Based Innovations to Transform Practice. New York, NY. Oxford University Press; 2014.
• Hermes ED, Lyon AR, Schueller SM, Glass JE. Measuring the implementation of behavioral intervention technologies: recharacterization of established outcomes. J Med Internet Res. Jan 25, 2019;21(1):e11752. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hoy MB. Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and more: an introduction to voice assistants. Med Ref Serv Q. 2018;37(1):81-88. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Choi Y, Demiris G, Thompson H. Feasibility of smart speaker use to support aging in place. Innov Aging. Nov 11, 2018;2(suppl_1):560. [ CrossRef ]
• Orr DA, Sanchez L. Alexa, did you get that? Determining the evidentiary value of data stored by the Amazon® Echo. Digit Investig. Mar 2018;24:72-78. [ CrossRef ]
• Gray S. Always on: privacy implications of microphone-enabled devices. Future of Privacy Forum. Apr 2016. URL: https://fpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/FPF_Always_On_WP.pdf [accessed 2023-11-02]
• Gao C, Chandrasekaran V, Fawaz K, Banerjee S. Traversing the quagmire that is privacy in your smart home. In: Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on IoT Security and Privacy. 2018. Presented at: IoT S&P '18; August 20, 2018; Budapest, Hungary. [ CrossRef ]
• Pfeifle A. Alexa, what should we do about privacy? Protecting privacy for users of voice-activated devices. Wash Law Rev. 2018;93(1):421.
• Amazon.com: life of an utterance. Amazon. URL: https://www.amazon.com/b/?node=23608618011 [accessed 2023-11-03]
• Fischer SH, David D, Crotty BH, Dierks M, Safran C. Acceptance and use of health information technology by community-dwelling elders. Int J Med Inform. Sep 2014;83(9):624-635. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hargittai E, Piper AM, Morris MR. From internet access to internet skills: digital inequality among older adults. Univ Access Inf Soc. May 3, 2018;18:881-890. [ CrossRef ]
• How popular is internet use among older people? Eurostat. May 17, 2021. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/edn-20210517-1 [accessed 2024-05-22]
• Internet, broadband fact sheet. Pew Research Center. Jan 31, 2024. URL: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ [accessed 2024-05-22]
• Cotten SR. Technologies and aging: understanding use, impacts, and future needs. In: Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (Ninth Edition). Cambridge, MA. Academic Press; 2021.
• Rikard RV, Berkowsky RW, Cotten SR. Discontinued information and communication technology usage among older adults in continuing care retirement communities in the United States. Gerontology. 2018;64(2):188-200. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rosenberg L, Kottorp A, Winblad B, Nygård L. Perceived difficulty in everyday technology use among older adults with or without cognitive deficits. Scand J Occup Ther. 2009;16(4):216-226. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bobillier Chaumon ME, Michel C, Tarpin Bernard F, Croisile B. Can ICT improve the quality of life of elderly adults living in residential home care units? From actual impacts to hidden artefacts. Behav Inf Technol. Oct 29, 2013;33(6):574-590. [ CrossRef ]
• Mynatt ED, Rogers WA. Developing technology to support the functional independence of older adults. Ageing Int. Dec 2001;27:24-41. [ CrossRef ]
• Robinson L, Cotten SR, Ono H, Quan-Haase A, Mesch G, Chen W, et al. Digital inequalities and why they matter. Inf Commun Soc. Mar 16, 2015;18(5):569-582. [ CrossRef ]
• McCloud R, Perez C, Bekalu MA, Viswanath K. Using smart speaker technology for health and well-being in an older adult population: pre-post feasibility study. JMIR Aging. May 09, 2022;5(2):e33498. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ziman R, Walsh G. Factors affecting seniors' perceptions of voice-enabled user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2018. Presented at: CHI EA '18; April 21-26, 2018; Montreal, QC. [ CrossRef ]
• Kowalski J, Jaskulska A, Skorupska K, Abramczuk K, Biele C, Kope? W, et al. Older adults and voice interaction: a pilot study with Google home. In: Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2019. Presented at: CHI EA '19; May 4-9, 2019; Glasgow, UK. [ CrossRef ]
• Edwards KJ, Jones RB, Shenton D, Page T, Maramba I, Warren A, et al. The use of smart speakers in care home residents: implementation study. J Med Internet Res. Dec 20, 2021;23(12):e26767. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim S, Choudhury A. Exploring older adults’ perception and use of smart speaker-based voice assistants: a longitudinal study. Comput Hum Behav. Nov 2021;124:106914. [ CrossRef ]
• Martín-García AV, Redolat R, Pinazo-Hernandis S. Factors influencing intention to technological use in older adults. The TAM model aplication. Res Aging. 2022;44(7-8):573-588. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. Sep 2003;27(3):425-478. [ CrossRef ]
• Nied RJ, Franklin B. Promoting and prescribing exercise for the elderly. Am Fam Physician. Feb 01, 2002;65(3):419-426. [ FREE Full text ] [ Medline ]
• World report on ageing and health. World Health Organization. Sep 29, 2015. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565042 [accessed 2023-11-04]
• Harvey JA, Chastin SF, Skelton DA. Prevalence of sedentary behavior in older adults: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. Dec 02, 2013;10(12):6645-6661. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Spiteri K, Broom D, Bekhet AH, de Caro JX, Laventure B, Grafton K. Barriers and motivators of physical activity participation in middle-aged and older-adults - a systematic review. J Aging Phys Act. Sep 01, 2019;27(4):929-944. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Buman MP, Daphna Yasova L, Giacobbi PRJ. Descriptive and narrative reports of barriers and motivators to physical activity in sedentary older adults. Psychol Sport Exerc. May 2010;11(3):223-230. [ CrossRef ]
• Cress ME, Buchner DM, Prohaska T, Rimmer J, Brown M, Macera C, et al. Best practices for physical activity programs and behavior counseling in older adult populations. J Aging Phys Act. Jan 2005;13(1):61-74. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bethancourt HJ, Rosenberg DE, Beatty T, Arterburn DE. Barriers to and facilitators of physical activity program use among older adults. Clin Med Res. Sep 2014;12(1-2):10-20. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Chin J, Quinn K, Muramatsu N, Marquez D. A user study on the feasibility and acceptance of delivering physical activity programs to older adults through conversational agents. Proc Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. Dec 2020;64(1):33-37. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ashworth NL, Chad KE, Harrison EL, Reeder BA, Marshall SC. Home versus center based physical activity programs in older adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 25, 2005;2005(1):CD004017. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Cobiac LJ, Vos T, Barendregt JJ. Cost-effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity: a modelling study. PLoS Med. Jul 14, 2009;6(7):e1000110. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Wantland DJ, Portillo CJ, Holzemer WL, Slaughter R, McGhee EM. The effectiveness of web-based vs. non-web-based interventions: a meta-analysis of behavioral change outcomes. J Med Internet Res. Nov 10, 2004;6(4):e40. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Valle C, Tate D. Technology-based interventions to promote diet, exercise, and weight control. In: Behavioral Health Care and Technology: Using Science-Based Innovations to Transform Practice. Oxford, UK. Oxford University Press; Nov 2014.
• Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. Mar 2011;38(2):65-76. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Guzman AL. Voices in and of the machine: source orientation toward mobile virtual assistants. Comput Hum Behav. Jan 2019;90:343-350. [ CrossRef ]
• Foehr J, Germelmann CC. Alexa, can I trust you? Exploring consumer paths to trust in smart voice-interaction technologies. J Assoc Consum Res. Apr 2020;5(2):181-205. [ CrossRef ]
• Taherdoost H. A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories. Procedia Manuf. 2018;22:960-967. [ CrossRef ]
• Bixter MT, Blocker KA, Mitzner TL, Prakash A, Rogers WA. Understanding the use and non-use of social communication technologies by older adults: a qualitative test and extension of the UTAUT model. Gerontechnology. Jun 2019;18(2):70-88. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Magsamen-Conrad K, Upadhyaya S, Joa CY, Dowd J. Bridging the divide: using UTAUT to predict multigenerational tablet adoption practices. Comput Human Behav. Sep 01, 2015;50:186-196. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rouidi M, Elouadi AE, Hamdoune A, Choujtani K, Chati A. TAM-UTAUT and the acceptance of remote healthcare technologies by healthcare professionals: a systematic review. Inform Med Unlocked. 2022;32:101008. [ CrossRef ]
• Moxley J, Sharit J, Czaja SJ. The factors influencing older adults' decisions surrounding adoption of technology: quantitative experimental study. JMIR Aging. Nov 23, 2022;5(4):e39890. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Berkowsky RW, Sharit J, Czaja SJ. Factors predicting decisions about technology adoption among older adults. Innov Aging. Feb 21, 2018;2(1):igy002. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Kim D. Can healthcare apps and smart speakers improve the health behavior and depression of older adults? A quasi-experimental study. Front Digit Health. Feb 23, 2023;5:1117280. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Yan T, Wilber KH, Wieckowski J, Simmons WJ. Results from the healthy moves for aging well program: changes of the health outcomes. Home Health Care Serv Q. 2009;28(2-3):100-111. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• The trusted standard in research, ethics, compliance, and safety training. CITI Program. URL: https://about.citiprogram.org/ [accessed 2024-05-20]
• Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. Dec 2007;19(6):349-357. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Heerink M, Kröse BJ, Vanessa E, Wielinga BJ. The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. J Phys Agents. Jan 2008;2(2):33-40. [ CrossRef ]
• Rosenberg L, Nygård L, Kottorp A. Everyday technology use questionnaire: psychometric evaluation of a new assessment of competence in technology use. Occup Ther J Res. 2009;29(2):52-62. [ CrossRef ]
• Laver K, George S, Ratcliffe J, Crotty M. Measuring technology self efficacy: reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(3):220-227. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. Oct 1975;23(10):433-441. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Roccaforte WH, Burke WJ, Bayer BL, Wengel SP. Reliability and validity of the short portable mental status questionnaire administered by telephone. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1994;7(1):33-38. [ Medline ]
• Happ MB, Dabbs AD, Tate J, Hricik A, Erlen J. Exemplars of mixed methods data combination and analysis. Nurs Res. 2006;55(2 Suppl):S43-S49. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11(3):255-274. [ CrossRef ]
• Wi-Fi networks that are incompatible or aren’t recommended. Google Nest Help. URL: https://support.google.com/googlenest/answer/9249905?hl=en [accessed 2023-11-15]
• Chang F, Sheng L, Gu Z. Investigating the integration and the long-term use of smart speakers in older adults' daily practices: qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. Feb 12, 2024;12:e47472. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Desai S, Chin J. OK Google, let's learn: using voice user interfaces for informal self-regulated learning of health topics among younger and older adults. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2023. Presented at: CHI '23; April 23-28, 2023; Hamburg, Germany. [ CrossRef ]
• Desai S, Lundy M, Chin J. “A painless way to learn:” designing an interactive storytelling voice user interface to engage older adults in informal health information learning. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Conversational User Interfaces. 2023. Presented at: CUI '23; July 19-21, 2023; Eindhoven, The Netherlands. [ CrossRef ]
• Thirunavukarasu AJ, Ting DS, Elangovan K, Gutierrez L, Tan TF, Ting DS. Large language models in medicine. Nat Med. Aug 2023;29(8):1930-1940. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Manikonda L, Deotale A, Kambhampati S. What's up with privacy?: user preferences and privacy concerns in intelligent personal assistants. In: Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society. 2018. Presented at: AIES '18; February 2-3, 2018; New Orleans, LA. [ CrossRef ]
• Edu JS, Such JM, Suarez-Tangil G. Smart home personal assistants: a security and privacy review. ACM Comput Surv. Dec 06, 2020;53(6):1-36. [ CrossRef ]
• Lutz C, Newlands G. Privacy and smart speakers: a multi-dimensional approach. Inf Soc. Mar 27, 2021;37(3):147-162. [ CrossRef ]

Abbreviations

Edited by E Wethington, A Dominello, I Kronish, J Kaye; submitted 22.11.23; peer-reviewed by S Muraki, M Chatzimina, H Li; comments to author 05.04.24; revised version received 01.06.24; accepted 29.06.24; published 30.08.24.

©Kelly Quinn, Sarah Leiser Ransom, Carrie O'Connell, Naoko Muramatsu, David X Marquez, Jessie Chin. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 30.08.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (ISSN 1438-8871), is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

7 signs a job interview went well, according to an HR executive with over 35 years of experience

• Michael Doolin has worked in HR for 36 years at companies such as PwC, British Airways, and DPD.
• He said there are signs that can suggest an interview went well, but preparation is more important.
• Body language, length of the interview, and chemistry with the interviewer could all be clues.

This as-told-to essay is based on a transcribed conversation with Michael Doolin, CEO of Clover HR and former human resources director at PwC, British Airways, and DPD in Ireland. The following has been edited for length and clarity.

It's very common for job candidates to be uncertain about how a job interview has gone. People get nervous and unsure during interviews — and body language is not easy to read when meeting someone for the first time.

Preparing is the best way to mitigate the risk of an interview going poorly. Before entering the room, ensure you're confident in your preparation and yourself.

When you come out, ask yourself: Could I have done any better?

If you can answer "yes" to that question, your success landing the role will depend on your credibility and whether the interviewers relate to you.

You can't always trust your gut feeling on whether it went well. In my experience, I'd say it's right 50% of the time. Alongside your gut reaction, here are seven signs that an interview was successful.

You received a job offer

The ultimate sign that an interview went well — and this is very rare — is if you get offered the job or the opportunity at the conclusion of the meeting.

But don't worry if you haven't received an offer on the spot. I've once offered someone a part time PA role immediately. However, it didn't work out long term because I'd allowed my emotions in the interview to take over from an objective view of the candidate's work record.

Positive body language

Another subtle sign that an interview went well is the interviewers' body language and how they relate to you.

Related stories

The general tone and demeanor of your interviewers at the conclusion of the interview can sometimes give you clues.

During a successful interview in my career, I noticed the panel smiled and laughed collaboratively. They exchanged compliments openly and asked me questions about non-job-related areas.

Good body language includes smiling, laughing, making jokes, and being engaged and curious about what you're saying.

Body language isn't a definitive sign, however. People can be good actors. Don't read everything into it.

Having a good rapport with the interviewer

Having a good rapport with the interviewer does suggest that things have gone well. When I give interviews, I usually ask a fun first question to lighten the mood like "Which football team do you support?"

I immediately see people's faces light up or smile. They know I'm not interested in the football team, but it's a way of getting them talking, and it demystifies the process.

I always stress that you are being interviewed from the moment you step inside the building.

The security guard, the receptionist, the colleagues who meet and greet you. They speak to the people interviewing you, and if you come across well, they might pass that on.

If it's a virtual interview, your background tells a story, so keep it professional — never in a bedroom or kitchen.

The interview ran over time

If an interview lasts longer than anticipated, it's typically a good sign. It's the employer who controls how long an interview lasts.

A call running over can indicate genuine engagement, curiosity, and a desire to spend more time getting under a candidate's skin. But really, a good interview should not last more than 50 minutes. The interviewee should be talking 80% of the time, and the interviewer 20%.

You asked your interviewers good questions

Strong job applicants usually come prepared with questions. Every candidate should ask these two killer questions at an interview to help it go well.

Firstly, "If I were lucky enough to be offered this position, what advice would you give me on starting?"

That will get the individuals talking and give a better insight into the role.

The second question, which should already have come up, is: "How would I be measured in this job?"

I tell anybody who asks me for interview tips to ask those two questions. But more importantly, have your own answers ready for their response: be ready to offer examples of how you would work in the job, how you like to be measured at work, and how well you match the answers they give. This is another opportunity to promote your worth.

Being asked for your notice period

Being asked for your notice period or availability for another interview tends to indicate that they are considering employing you.

A good interviewer, however, should have this information before they interview you.

Your interviewers made a good impression on you

An interview works both ways. It's an equal chance to determine whether a workplace is right for you.

If you feel aligned with the workplace and interviewers, there is a higher chance the fit is seamless and the feeling is mutual.

You can ask questions that will help to work this out. I suggest asking questions like: "What three words would best describe this workplace, and why? Why did the last individual leave? I notice from LinkedIn that you've worked here for eight years—why have you stayed? Why should I join this business?"

Don't get too invested

An interview can still have gone well without resulting in a job offer.

Employers often get candidates of equal value and then, unfortunately, can make decisions based on more subjective factors, like who they like best.

Things happen for a reason. I always advise people not to get too emotionally involved in the interview process.

Correction: August 20, 2024 — An earlier version of this story misstated the percentage of time an interviewer and interviewee should speak. The interviewee should be talking 80% of the time and the interviewer 20%.

• Main content

President of Project 2025 partner says abortion should be “unthinkable” and “unavailable”

Written by Media Matters Staff

Published 08/29/24 1:50 PM EDT

Citation From the August 28, 2024, edition of Students for Life of America's  The Explicitly Pro-Life Podcast 

KRISTAN HAWKINS (HOST): That's interesting that you say that because so often, we even hear from pro-life advocates, especially now in this kind of post- Roe era, I've heard, well, we need to step completely out of the law. Politics is dirty. There's never a truly 100% pro-life candidate, which I would agree with that statement.

So, therefore, we should just focus on culture. We should make abortion unthinkable, but I'm over here going, well, it should also be unavailable too. Like, it has to be both things because the law saved your life.