qualitative interview research topics

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.

Types of Interviewing Questions: Unstructured conversations, Semi-structured interview, Structured interview, Survey questions

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?

How to conduct qualitative interviews (tips and best practices)

Last updated

18 May 2023

Reviewed by

Miroslav Damyanov

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

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

What is a qualitative interview?

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

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

How to conduct interviews in qualitative research

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

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

1. Before the interview

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

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

2. During the interview

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

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

3. After the interview

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

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

Free AI content analysis generator

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

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

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

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

In customer research , you might ask questions such as:

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

How did you first learn about our product/service?

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

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

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

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

How to determine the right qualitative interview participants

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to make qualitative interview subjects comfortable

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

Here are some ways to make interview subjects comfortable:

Explain the purpose of the study

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

Create a comfortable environment

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

Build rapport

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

Use open-ended questions

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

Listen attentively

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

Avoid judgment

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

Offer breaks

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

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

How to analyze a qualitative interview

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

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

1. Transcription

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

2. Data reduction

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

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

4. Categorization

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

5. Interpretation

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

6. Comparison

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

7. Triangulation

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

8. Synthesis

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

Tips for transcribing a qualitative interview

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

Here are some tips for transcribing a qualitative interview:

Use transcription software

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

Listen carefully

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

Use appropriate formatting

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

Edit for clarity

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

Proofread and edit

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

Use timestamps

Add timestamps to the transcription to reference specific interview sections.

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

Why are interview techniques in qualitative research effective?

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

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

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

What are the weaknesses of qualitative interviews?

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

The weaknesses of qualitative interviews include the following:

Subjectivity and personal biases

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

Small sample size

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

Data quality

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

Socially desirable responses

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

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

Time-consuming

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

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

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

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

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Do you want to discover previous research faster?

Do you share your research findings with others?

Do you analyze research data?

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

Editor’s picks

Last updated: 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

Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers

September 2020
The Qualitative Report
This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.

Discover the world's research

25+ million members
160+ million publication pages
2.3+ billion citations
Changqi Dong

Betül ERSOY
D Alkhodary
M Alnawaiseh
Ahmad B Ahmad

Arnida Abdullah

Mark Holton

Jennifer Yphantides
Iman Setia Harefa

Eleni Gesch-Karamanlidis
Steinar Kvale
Julie Bettie
Barney G. Glaser
Anselm L. Strauss
A. I. Richards

Barbara Snell Dohrenwend
David Klein
Y.S. Lincoln
John W. Creswell
David S. Cordray
Michael Quinn Patton
M.Q. Patton
Recruit researchers
Join for free
Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

Knowledge Base

Methodology

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data . Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.

There are several types of interviews, often differentiated by their level of structure.

Structured interviews have predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order.
Unstructured interviews are more free-flowing.
Semi-structured interviews fall in between.

Interviews are commonly used in market research, social science, and ethnographic research .

What is a structured interview, what is a semi-structured interview, what is an unstructured interview, what is a focus group, examples of interview questions, advantages and disadvantages of interviews, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of interviews.

Structured interviews have predetermined questions in a set order. They are often closed-ended, featuring dichotomous (yes/no) or multiple-choice questions. While open-ended structured interviews exist, they are much less common. The types of questions asked make structured interviews a predominantly quantitative tool.

Asking set questions in a set order can help you see patterns among responses, and it allows you to easily compare responses between participants while keeping other factors constant. This can mitigate research biases and lead to higher reliability and validity. However, structured interviews can be overly formal, as well as limited in scope and flexibility.

You feel very comfortable with your topic. This will help you formulate your questions most effectively.
You have limited time or resources. Structured interviews are a bit more straightforward to analyze because of their closed-ended nature, and can be a doable undertaking for an individual.
Your research question depends on holding environmental conditions between participants constant.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Semi-structured interviews are a blend of structured and unstructured interviews. While the interviewer has a general plan for what they want to ask, the questions do not have to follow a particular phrasing or order.

Semi-structured interviews are often open-ended, allowing for flexibility, but follow a predetermined thematic framework, giving a sense of order. For this reason, they are often considered “the best of both worlds.”

However, if the questions differ substantially between participants, it can be challenging to look for patterns, lessening the generalizability and validity of your results.

You have prior interview experience. It’s easier than you think to accidentally ask a leading question when coming up with questions on the fly. Overall, spontaneous questions are much more difficult than they may seem.
Your research question is exploratory in nature. The answers you receive can help guide your future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview. The questions and the order in which they are asked are not set. Instead, the interview can proceed more spontaneously, based on the participant’s previous answers.

Unstructured interviews are by definition open-ended. This flexibility can help you gather detailed information on your topic, while still allowing you to observe patterns between participants.

However, so much flexibility means that they can be very challenging to conduct properly. You must be very careful not to ask leading questions, as biased responses can lead to lower reliability or even invalidate your research.

You have a solid background in your research topic and have conducted interviews before.
Your research question is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking descriptive data that will deepen and contextualize your initial hypotheses.
Your research necessitates forming a deeper connection with your participants, encouraging them to feel comfortable revealing their true opinions and emotions.

A focus group brings together a group of participants to answer questions on a topic of interest in a moderated setting. Focus groups are qualitative in nature and often study the group’s dynamic and body language in addition to their answers. Responses can guide future research on consumer products and services, human behavior, or controversial topics.

Focus groups can provide more nuanced and unfiltered feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large surveys . However, their small size leads to low external validity and the temptation as a researcher to “cherry-pick” responses that fit your hypotheses.

Your research focuses on the dynamics of group discussion or real-time responses to your topic.
Your questions are complex and rooted in feelings, opinions, and perceptions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
Your topic is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Depending on the type of interview you are conducting, your questions will differ in style, phrasing, and intention. Structured interview questions are set and precise, while the other types of interviews allow for more open-endedness and flexibility.

Here are some examples.

Semi-structured
Unstructured
Focus group
Do you like dogs? Yes/No
Do you associate dogs with feeling: happy; somewhat happy; neutral; somewhat unhappy; unhappy
If yes, name one attribute of dogs that you like.
If no, name one attribute of dogs that you don’t like.
What feelings do dogs bring out in you?
When you think more deeply about this, what experiences would you say your feelings are rooted in?

Interviews are a great research tool. They allow you to gather rich information and draw more detailed conclusions than other research methods, taking into consideration nonverbal cues, off-the-cuff reactions, and emotional responses.

However, they can also be time-consuming and deceptively challenging to conduct properly. Smaller sample sizes can cause their validity and reliability to suffer, and there is an inherent risk of interviewer effect arising from accidentally leading questions.

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each type of interview that can help you decide if you’d like to utilize this research method.

Advantages and disadvantages of interviews
Type of interview	Advantages	Disadvantages
Structured interview
Semi-structured interview		, , , and
Unstructured interview		, , , and
Focus group		, , and , since there are multiple people present

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

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

Research bias

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

The four most common types of interviews are:

Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

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

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

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2023, June 22). Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/interviews-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, "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”

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

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

Interviews in the social sciences

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

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

737k Accesses

87 Citations

190 Altmetric

Metrics details

Interdisciplinary studies

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

The fundamental importance of method to theory

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

Participatory action research

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

Experimentation

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

Research design

Participant selection.

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

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

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

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

Study design

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

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

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

Data collection

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

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

Topic guide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Optimizing the interview

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

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

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

Ethics and reflexivity

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

Ethical considerations prior to interview

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

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

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

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

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

Box 1 Mapping potential forms of harm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethical considerations post-interview

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

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

Reflexivity and positionality

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

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

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

Box 2 Aspects to reflect on reflexively

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

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

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

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

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

Educational experiences and privileges, see above

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

Political and social values

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

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

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

Preparing data

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

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

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

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

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

Box 3 Excerpt of interview transcript (from Teeger 24 )

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

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

Interviewer : So what kind of things do you do?

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

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

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

Reprinted with permission from ref. 24 , Sage Publications.

From data to codes

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

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

From coding to analysis and writing

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applications

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

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

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

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

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

Nationalism and ethnicity

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

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

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

Education and inequality

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

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

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

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

The welfare state

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

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

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

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

Reproducibility and data deposition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Limitations and optimizations

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

Breadth versus depth of insight

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

Naturalistic or artificial interviews

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

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

Dynamism and replicability

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

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

Accessing the private and personal

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

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

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

Collaborating and mixing

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

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

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

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

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

Digital innovations and challenges

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

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

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

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

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

The next 5–10 years

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MathSciNet Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADS Google Scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleanor Knott .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information.

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

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rights and permissions

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 14 July 2022

Published : 15 September 2022

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

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

Scientific Reports (2024)

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

Srishti Hegde
Shalini Quadros
Vinita A. Acharya

Community Mental Health Journal (2024)

Is e-business breaking down barriers for Bangladesh’s young female entrepreneurs during the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study

Md. Fouad Hossain Sarker
Sayed Farrukh Ahmed
Md. Salman Sohel

SN Social Sciences (2024)

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

Emelie Louise Miller
Ingrid Zakrisson

Discover Psychology (2024)

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

Alexandra Vázquez
Lucía López-Rodríguez
Marco Brambilla

Sex Roles (2024)

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

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.

Your interview questions need to directly link to your research aims, objectives and research questions - your "golden thread”.

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.

Where you conduct your interviews and the equipment you use to record them play an important role in how the process unfolds.

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.

You should consider all the potential risks, how you’ll reduce their probability and how you'll respond if they do indeed materialize.

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

Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25 Examples

We review the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, how to craft them effectively, & 25 example questions.

Einstein was many things—a physicist, a philosopher, and, undoubtedly, a mastermind. He also had an incredible way with words. His quote, "Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted," is particularly poignant when it comes to research.

Some inquiries call for a quantitative approach, for counting and measuring data in order to arrive at general conclusions. Other investigations, like qualitative research, rely on deep exploration and understanding of individual cases in order to develop a greater understanding of the whole. That’s what we’re going to focus on today.

Qualitative research questions focus on the "how" and "why" of things, rather than the "what". They ask about people's experiences and perceptions , and can be used to explore a wide range of topics.

The following article will discuss the basics of qualitative research questions, including their key components, and how to craft them effectively. You'll also find 25 examples of effective qualitative research questions you can use as inspiration for your own studies.

Let’s get started!

What are qualitative research questions, and when are they used?

When researchers set out to conduct a study on a certain topic, their research is chiefly directed by an overarching question . This question provides focus for the study and helps determine what kind of data will be collected.

By starting with a question, we gain parameters and objectives for our line of research. What are we studying? For what purpose? How will we know when we’ve achieved our goals?

Of course, some of these questions can be described as quantitative in nature. When a research question is quantitative, it usually seeks to measure or calculate something in a systematic way.

For example:

How many people in our town use the library?
What is the average income of families in our city?
How much does the average person weigh?

Other research questions, however—and the ones we will be focusing on in this article—are qualitative in nature. Qualitative research questions are open-ended and seek to explore a given topic in-depth.

According to the Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , “Qualitative research aims to address questions concerned with developing an understanding of the meaning and experience dimensions of humans’ lives and social worlds.”

This type of research can be used to gain a better understanding of people’s thoughts, feelings and experiences by “addressing questions beyond ‘what works’, towards ‘what works for whom when, how and why, and focusing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation,” states one paper in Neurological Research and Practice .

Qualitative questions often produce rich data that can help researchers develop hypotheses for further quantitative study.

What are people’s thoughts on the new library?
How does it feel to be a first-generation student at our school?
How do people feel about the changes taking place in our town?

As stated by a paper in Human Reproduction , “...‘qualitative’ methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning, and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participant. These data are usually not amenable to counting or measuring.”

Both quantitative and qualitative questions have their uses; in fact, they often complement each other. A well-designed research study will include a mix of both types of questions in order to gain a fuller understanding of the topic at hand.

If you would like to recruit unlimited participants for qualitative research for free and only pay for the interview you conduct, try using Respondent today.

Crafting qualitative research questions for powerful insights

Now that we have a basic understanding of what qualitative research questions are and when they are used, let’s take a look at how you can begin crafting your own.

According to a study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, there is a certain process researchers should follow when crafting their questions, which we’ll explore in more depth.

1. Beginning the process

Start with a point of interest or curiosity, and pose a draft question or ‘self-question’. What do you want to know about the topic at hand? What is your specific curiosity? You may find it helpful to begin by writing several questions.

For example, if you’re interested in understanding how your customer base feels about a recent change to your product, you might ask:

What made you decide to try the new product?
How do you feel about the change?
What do you think of the new design/functionality?
What benefits do you see in the change?

2. Create one overarching, guiding question

At this point, narrow down the draft questions into one specific question. “Sometimes, these broader research questions are not stated as questions, but rather as goals for the study.”

As an example of this, you might narrow down these three questions:

into the following question:

What are our customers’ thoughts on the recent change to our product?

3. Theoretical framing

As you read the relevant literature and apply theory to your research, the question should be altered to achieve better outcomes. Experts agree that pursuing a qualitative line of inquiry should open up the possibility for questioning your original theories and altering the conceptual framework with which the research began.

If we continue with the current example, it’s possible you may uncover new data that informs your research and changes your question. For instance, you may discover that customers’ feelings about the change are not just a reaction to the change itself, but also to how it was implemented. In this case, your question would need to reflect this new information:

How did customers react to the process of the change, as well as the change itself?

4. Ethical considerations

A study in the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education stresses that ethics are “a central issue when a researcher proposes to study the lives of others, especially marginalized populations.” Consider how your question or inquiry will affect the people it relates to—their lives and their safety. Shape your question to avoid physical, emotional, or mental upset for the focus group.

In analyzing your question from this perspective, if you feel that it may cause harm, you should consider changing the question or ending your research project. Perhaps you’ve discovered that your question encourages harmful or invasive questioning, in which case you should reformulate it.

5. Writing the question

The actual process of writing the question comes only after considering the above points. The purpose of crafting your research questions is to delve into what your study is specifically about” Remember that qualitative research questions are not trying to find the cause of an effect, but rather to explore the effect itself.

Your questions should be clear, concise, and understandable to those outside of your field. In addition, they should generate rich data. The questions you choose will also depend on the type of research you are conducting:

If you’re doing a phenomenological study, your questions might be open-ended, in order to allow participants to share their experiences in their own words.
If you’re doing a grounded-theory study, your questions might be focused on generating a list of categories or themes.
If you’re doing ethnography, your questions might be about understanding the culture you’re studying.

Whenyou have well-written questions, it is much easier to develop your research design and collect data that accurately reflects your inquiry.

In writing your questions, it may help you to refer to this simple flowchart process for constructing questions:

Download Free E-Book

25 examples of expertly crafted qualitative research questions

It's easy enough to cover the theory of writing a qualitative research question, but sometimes it's best if you can see the process in practice. In this section, we'll list 25 examples of B2B and B2C-related qualitative questions.

Let's begin with five questions. We'll show you the question, explain why it's considered qualitative, and then give you an example of how it can be used in research.

1. What is the customer's perception of our company's brand?

Qualitative research questions are often open-ended and invite respondents to share their thoughts and feelings on a subject. This question is qualitative because it seeks customer feedback on the company's brand.

This question can be used in research to understand how customers feel about the company's branding, what they like and don't like about it, and whether they would recommend it to others.

2. Why do customers buy our product?

This question is also qualitative because it seeks to understand the customer's motivations for purchasing a product. It can be used in research to identify the reasons customers buy a certain product, what needs or desires the product fulfills for them, and how they feel about the purchase after using the product.

3. How do our customers interact with our products?

Again, this question is qualitative because it seeks to understand customer behavior. In this case, it can be used in research to see how customers use the product, how they interact with it, and what emotions or thoughts the product evokes in them.

4. What are our customers' biggest frustrations with our products?

By seeking to understand customer frustrations, this question is qualitative and can provide valuable insights. It can be used in research to help identify areas in which the company needs to make improvements with its products.

5. How do our customers feel about our customer service?

Rather than asking why customers like or dislike something, this question asks how they feel. This qualitative question can provide insights into customer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a company.

This type of question can be used in research to understand what customers think of the company's customer service and whether they feel it meets their needs.

20 more examples to refer to when writing your question

Now that you’re aware of what makes certain questions qualitative, let's move into 20 more examples of qualitative research questions:

How do your customers react when updates are made to your app interface?
How do customers feel when they complete their purchase through your ecommerce site?
What are your customers' main frustrations with your service?
How do people feel about the quality of your products compared to those of your competitors?
What motivates customers to refer their friends and family members to your product or service?
What are the main benefits your customers receive from using your product or service?
How do people feel when they finish a purchase on your website?
What are the main motivations behind customer loyalty to your brand?
How does your app make people feel emotionally?
For younger generations using your app, how does it make them feel about themselves?
What reputation do people associate with your brand?
How inclusive do people find your app?
In what ways are your customers' experiences unique to them?
What are the main areas of improvement your customers would like to see in your product or service?
How do people feel about their interactions with your tech team?
What are the top five reasons people use your online marketplace?
How does using your app make people feel in terms of connectedness?
What emotions do people experience when they're using your product or service?
Aside from the features of your product, what else about it attracts customers?
How does your company culture make people feel?

As you can see, these kinds of questions are completely open-ended. In a way, they allow the research and discoveries made along the way to direct the research. The questions are merely a starting point from which to explore.

This video offers tips on how to write good qualitative research questions, produced by Qualitative Research Expert, Kimberly Baker.

Wrap-up: crafting your own qualitative research questions.

Over the course of this article, we've explored what qualitative research questions are, why they matter, and how they should be written. Hopefully you now have a clear understanding of how to craft your own.

Remember, qualitative research questions should always be designed to explore a certain experience or phenomena in-depth, in order to generate powerful insights. As you write your questions, be sure to keep the following in mind:

Are you being inclusive of all relevant perspectives?
Are your questions specific enough to generate clear answers?
Will your questions allow for an in-depth exploration of the topic at hand?
Do the questions reflect your research goals and objectives?

If you can answer "yes" to all of the questions above, and you've followed the tips for writing qualitative research questions we shared in this article, then you're well on your way to crafting powerful queries that will yield valuable insights.

Download Free E-Book

Respondent_100+Questions_Banners_1200x644 (1)

Asking the right questions in the right way is the key to research success. That’s true for not just the discussion guide but for every step of a research project. Following are 100+ questions that will take you from defining your research objective through screening and participant discussions.

Fill out the form below to access free e-book!

Recommend Resources:

How to Recruit Participants for Qualitative Research
The Best UX Research Tools of 2022
10 Smart Tips for Conducting Better User Interviews
50 Powerful Questions You Should Ask In Your Next User Interview
How To Find Participants For User Research: 13 Ways To Make It Happen
UX Diary Study: 5 Essential Tips For Conducing Better Studies
User Testing Recruitment: 10 Smart Tips To Find Participants Fast
Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights + 25
How To Successfully Recruit Participants for A Study (2022 Edition)
How To Properly Recruit Focus Group Participants (2022 Edition)
The Best Unmoderated Usability Testing Tools of 2022

50 Powerful User Interview Questions You Should Consider Asking

We researched the best user interview questions you can use for your qualitative research studies. Use these 50 sample questions for your next...

A Guide to Usability Testing Questions (Including 100 Examples)

Asking the right questions in the right way is the key to the success of your UX research project. With tips and 100+ question examples, Respondent...

How To Unleash Your Extra Income Potential With Respondent

The number one question we get from new participants is “how can I get invited to participate in more projects.” In this article, we’ll discuss a few...

The art of qualitative interview: A beginner’s guide

Have you ever wondered how researchers are able to collect such detailed information about various social phenomena and are able to delve into human experiences to understand the depth of feelings, emotions, and behaviours?

The answer often lies in qualitative interviews: a strategic method of uncovering the “whys” and “hows” behind people’s actions and thoughts.

Research in the social sciences particularly requires the use of qualitative interviews. They enable us to comprehend human motivations, emotions, and viewpoints in a manner that is not possible with only quantitative data.

So what exactly is a qualitative interview, and why is it important for research and other fields? In this guide, we're going to break down what qualitative interviews are, why they're so important, and how they're typically conducted. We will also discuss when an interview is qualitative or quantitative based on the format followed and results derived.

Consider the qualitative interview as your first step where every story matters and every voice has the power to enlighten.

What is a qualitative interview?

Qualitative interviews are more like having a meaningful conversation with a purpose that’s rooted in the research. Participants are encouraged to offer in-depth answers to the open-ended, conversational-style questions.

Rather than gathering quantitative data, the goal of a qualitative interview is to study complicated phenomena by developing a better knowledge of the circumstances, individual experiences, and human behaviour.

Key characteristics of qualitative interviews

Open-ended format: Questions are designed in a way to encourage detailed and meaningful conversations.

Interviewee focused: Emphasis on the interviewee's viewpoints and experiences.

Adaptable and flexible: Encourages follow-up questions based on the responses.

Subjective understanding: Attempts to comprehend viewpoints of interviewees.

Detailed exploration: Goes beyond the obvious to reveal more in-depth understanding.

In-depth narrative: Produces rich, descriptive data, usually in the form of writing.

Contextual awareness: Considers the participant's social and environmental context.

Qualitative vs quantitative interviews

Both quantitative and qualitative interviews are used extensively in the field of research to gather primary data. However, each of the two should be used as per the research requirements.

Below we have outlined the major differences between qualitative and quantitative interviews so that you may easily understand and assess which of the two would work best for your research.

Aspect

Qualitative Interviews

Quantitative Interviews

Purpose

To understand the perspectives and experiences of the interviewee in detail

To quantify data and generalise it for a larger population

Nature of Questions

Open-ended to encourage the interviewee to share more details. Semi-structured interview questions may be included as well

Close-ended to get more precise data. Often includes ratings or multiple choice options

Data Acquired

Textual data including more details and context

Numerical data for statistical analysis

Level of Interaction

High since it has open-ended questions and the purpose is to gather more details

Low since it contains close-ended and standardised questions

Flexibility

Highly flexible since more questions are formed based on the interviewee’s responses

Low flexibility since it follows a predetermined question format

Analysis

More focus is on the themes and patterns of the narrative as non-verbal cues are also looked at

More focus is on the statistics since trends and correlation in the data have to be observed

Outcome

Provides detailed understanding on a subject – particularly a specific issue or understanding

Offers data analysis which can be generalised to a larger population

Whether you are looking forward to diving into personal narratives with qualitative interviews or interpreting and analysing numerical data through quantitative interviews, remember that each of the two methods offers a different outlook on the topic under study. Understanding the two helps you pick the right one at the right stage, allowing you to conduct your research in a more comprehensive way.

The indispensable role of qualitative interviews in research

Now that we’ve established what a qualitative interview is, we need to understand its importance in the world of research. These interviews are particularly useful in qualitative research method areas which explore the complexities of social phenomena and human behaviour.

The crux of qualitative interviews is to understand the motivations and emotions underlying people’s actions and thoughts rather than merely examining data and statistics. This is increasingly significant in fields where knowing minute information about individuals is crucial, e.g. in market research, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.

Let’s have a look at some of the generalised benefits an interviewer can gain while conducting qualitative interviews.

One of the main advantages of a qualitative interview is getting a more detailed understanding of the viewpoints and experiences of participants. You may get in-depth knowledge that gives you a better grasp of the topic by asking follow-up and open-ended questions.

It's important to be flexible during the interview. Allow follow-up questions to be asked to gather more detailed information. New information that comes out during the conversation may be easily incorporated into the analysis because of this responsiveness.

Lastly, gathering in-depth data and first-hand information gives research findings a lot more perspective. The research is given a rich, comprehensive context via narrative data, which enhances comprehension and interpretation of the findings overall.

The development of theories and the formulation of hypotheses depend heavily on qualitative interviews. They are frequently used in exploratory research, when finding new study directions and themes and patterns is the main objective.

Researchers may create more relevant and grounded hypotheses by taking into account the unique viewpoints and experiences of individuals. These ideas can then be evaluated quantitatively for generalisation and trend analysis purposes.

Preparing for a qualitative interview

Another question that might be tugging at you is how to conduct a qualitative interview. To guarantee that the interview process is efficient and that rich and in-depth information is gathered, there are a few crucial steps that need to be taken into account.

Here’s a breakdown of the steps we suggest you to follow when planning to take a qualitative interview:

Defining the research objectives: Prior to proceeding, make sure you know exactly what you want out of the interviews. Which fundamental issues or themes do you wish to investigate? Every step that follows will be built upon this, so make sure you clearly define the outline.

Selecting participants: There are a few sub-steps to this as well. You not only need to know how to select participants but also what goes into it.

Target sampling: Choose participants who have experience and can offer perspectives related to your study. This might be predicted based on the roles relevant to the study.

Diverse perspectives: To get a variety of perspectives, try to include a more diverse audience. This deepens the scope of your study corresponding to the research methods chosen.

Recruitment strategies: To find potential interviewees, make use of strategies such as community boards, social media outreach, and recommendations.

Preparing interview questions: Develop questions that invoke in-depth answers. Refrain from asking one-word or multiple choice questions since they won’t provide you much necessary depth. While it's crucial to have a list of questions prepared, be flexible enough to change course as needed. Also ensure that your questions are considerate and do not reveal more personal information about participants than is required for your study.

Setting up the interview station: Select a peaceful, comfortable, and impartial space for your interviews. Make sure you have a steady internet connection and a distraction-free area if you're conducting them online.

Pre-interview preparation: Refresh your knowledge on interviewing techniques, such as encouraging participants to elaborate and using nonverbal cues. Consider the background and context of your attendees or the subjects you will be discussing so that you can explore the subject in more depth without crossing their individual boundaries.

You may create the foundation for an effective and enlightening data gathering process by thoroughly preparing yourself for the interview. This preparation helps in creating a comfortable environment for participants and ensures that the information gathered is relevant and valuable for your research objectives.

Conducting qualitative interviews

Now that we've established the basic guidelines for conducting a qualitative interview, we also need to look at some nitty-gritty details that can help ensure that your interview is successful.

Successful qualitative interviewing requires a set of procedures and methods that centre on rapport-building, attentive listening, and skillful questioning. Here's a step-by-step outline to guide you through the process.

Begin your interview process by establishing a comfortable atmosphere. Engage in informal conversation to put the participant at ease. Greet them warmly and clearly explain the purpose of the interview. This initial rapport sets the stage for a more open and genuine dialogue.

Ensure the participant has understood and agreed to use their data, completing any necessary consent forms. Emphasising the confidentiality of the data provided will further reassure them about their privacy and the ethical handling of their information.

Start with open-ended, broad questions. These allow the participants to express themselves freely and provide more detailed information. Active listening and genuine interest in their responses will help create a more engaging and fruitful conversation.

As the interview progresses, dive deeper into topics with follow-up questions, but be mindful of interruptions. Give the interviewee enough time to fully express their thoughts before interjecting, ensuring a natural and respectful flow of conversation. When responses are unclear or need more depth, utilise probing techniques. Paraphrase their answers for clarity and encourage them to expand on their thoughts.

Demonstrating active listening and empathy is vital, especially when touching on sensitive topics. Use appropriate body language to show your engagement and understanding. This empathetic approach fosters a trusting environment where participants feel valued and heard.

In concluding the interview, invite participants to add or clarify any points. This ensures a comprehensive understanding of their perspectives. Show your appreciation for their time and contributions, and inform them about the next steps in the process.

After the interview, take notes on your observations and quickly transcribe the session to ensure that all the information is captured. Here, you can employ services like Good Tape, which uses AI mechanisms to transcribe your audio, ensuring that even the non-verbal cues are recorded for efficient post-analysis.

Recording and transcribing interviews

Recording and transcribing qualitative interviews is crucial to guarantee that every word and aspect of the participant's reaction are captured accurately. This degree of accuracy is necessary for a comprehensive analysis.

Recordings can catch crucial non-verbal clues such as tone, pauses, and emotions in addition to words, providing a deeper picture of the participant's feelings and views. Transcripts may be utilised in academic papers or shared simply among research team members, making them an invaluable record for future reference. They are essential to keeping an extensive and enduring record of the interviews.

Let's look closely at some of the best practices you can follow when transcribing qualitative interviews.

It's critical to transcribe interviews as soon as possible after recording to guarantee the highest accuracy and context retention in your transcripts. To completely capture the essence of the interview, a detailed transcript containing every word, pause, and non-verbal indication is necessary. This degree of specification offers a thorough and detailed description of the discussion, which is essential for precise analysis and interpretation.
When transcribing, precision is essential. Once the transcription has been completed, listen to the audio and double-check the text to ensure no mistakes or omissions are made. Another crucial step is anonymising data, which entails changing or eliminating identifiable information to protect participant confidentiality.
Maintaining a uniform formatting style for all transcripts makes analysis and comparison easier, which raises your study's overall efficacy and efficiency.
Recording and transcribing interviews meticulously is vital in qualitative research, providing a foundation for robust data analysis and ensuring the integrity and richness of the data collected.

However, if you wish to expedite this process without compromising on the accuracy of the transcripts, you can make use of services like that of Good Tape. We rate it as one of the best transcription services for qualitative research which transcribes your audio into text accurately and with GDPR compliance, your data will remain secure throughout. The service’s shorter turnaround time allows you to focus more on the analysis and interpretation of the interviews rather than the time-consuming process of manual transcription.

Data analysis and interpretation in qualitative research

Analysis of qualitative data often involves sorting through the text to find themes, patterns, and insights. Here is a quick guide explaining the importance of interpretation in research as well as how to approach this step in a more structured way.

Data analysis step-by-step guide

Become familiar with the data: To become fully immersed in the data, begin by reading the transcripts several times. This first phase aids in giving you a comprehensive understanding of the context and content.

Identify recurring ideas, concepts, or expressions: Keep an eye out for themes that appear in many interviews. These themes serve as the foundation of your study and aid in the purposeful organisation of the data.

Coding: To classify the data, create a coding scheme. Words or brief sentences that stand for important ideas or themes might be used as codes. Coding facilitates methodical data organisation as well.

Look for patterns and relationships: Examine the information to look for trends and connections among the topics. Examining the ways in which many themes converge, conflict, or reinforce one another is part of this.

Create insights: Based on the patterns and themes identified, start to form insights.

Finalise and refine: Make sure that your analysis is in line with your research goals by continuing to refine it. If fresh ideas or trends show up in your data, don't hesitate to review them.

In qualitative research, interpretation is both a science and an art. It necessitates striking a balance between objectivity and admitting the researcher's personal perspective. To make sure that the interpretations are supported by the data and relevant to the larger study objectives, it is important to have an open, flexible, and critical mindset throughout the analytic process.

Mastering qualitative interview transcription: A guide to using using Good Tape’s Service

Working on qualitative research entails sitting through long interviews not just for the purpose of conducting them, but later on for transcription, review, analysis, and interpretation as well. Here, Good Tape's audio transcription services may really make a difference. Good Tape expedites these processes, saving significant time and improving concentration on the main research. This transcription service converts audio recordings into written text, which makes data analysis, citation, and reference much easier for academics and researchers to handle.

It’s also quite simple to use and does not require much effort and time as well. Here is a step-by-step walkthrough that you can expect when using it:

Upload your file: The first step in the process is to upload the file you need to transcribe. Make sure the file is complete and has all the information you require

Select the language: Good Tape has a number of options when it comes to choosing the language of transcription. Select the one you want, although you can also choose the “auto-detect” option for the system to automatically identify the language in the audio.

Transcribe the text: Once the file is uploaded and the language is chosen, proceed further by clicking the “transcribe” button. Your audio transcription process starts here.

To wait or not to wait: If you’re a casual plan user, you will have to wait for some time for your transcription to be completed due to excessive load by the users. However, if you’re a professional or a team user, you get your results ASAP. The wait time depends on the plan you’re subscribed to .

Get notified: You will receive a notification once your transcribed document is ready. An e-mail will be sent to your inbox containing the link to access and download the document.

Ready to make your next qualitative research one of those widely accepted and appreciated ones? Make use of Good Tape’s audio-to-text transcription today and allocate more of your time on analysing and interpreting the information to make your research the next groundbreaking one.

Journalistic interview: How to interview someone for an article

From text to context: A complete guide to qualitative data analysis

What is verbatim transcription?

The essential transcription services for qualitative research

We believe everyone should have access to top-quality automatic trancriptions.

That's why Good Tape is completely free to use . No credit card required.

Why is it free?

Harvard Library
Research Guides
Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Library Support for Qualitative Research

Interview Research

General Handbooks and Overviews

Qualitative research communities.

Types of Interviews
Recruiting & Engaging Participants
Interview Questions
Conducting Interviews
Recording & Transcription
Data Analysis
Managing Interview Data
Finding Extant Interviews
Past Workshops on Interview Research
Methodological Resources
Remote & Virtual Fieldwork
Data Management & Repositories
Campus Access
Interviews as a Method for Qualitative Research (video) This short video summarizes why interviews can serve as useful data in qualitative research.
InterViews by Steinar Kvale Interviewing is an essential tool in qualitative research and this introduction to interviewing outlines both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical aspects of the process. After examining the role of the interview in the research process, Steinar Kvale considers some of the key philosophical issues relating to interviewing: the interview as conversation, hermeneutics, phenomenology, concerns about ethics as well as validity, and postmodernism. Having established this framework, the author then analyzes the seven stages of the interview process - from designing a study to writing it up.
Practical Evaluation by Michael Quinn Patton Surveys different interviewing strategies, from, a) informal/conversational, to b) interview guide approach, to c) standardized and open-ended, to d) closed/quantitative. Also discusses strategies for wording questions that are open-ended, clear, sensitive, and neutral, while supporting the speaker. Provides suggestions for probing and maintaining control of the interview process, as well as suggestions for recording and transcription.
The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research by Amir B. Marvasti (Editor); James A. Holstein (Editor); Jaber F. Gubrium (Editor); Karyn D. McKinney (Editor) The new edition of this landmark volume emphasizes the dynamic, interactional, and reflexive dimensions of the research interview. Contributors highlight the myriad dimensions of complexity that are emerging as researchers increasingly frame the interview as a communicative opportunity as much as a data-gathering format. The book begins with the history and conceptual transformations of the interview, which is followed by chapters that discuss the main components of interview practice. Taken together, the contributions to The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft encourage readers simultaneously to learn the frameworks and technologies of interviewing and to reflect on the epistemological foundations of the interview craft.
International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry They host an annual confrerence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which aims to facilitate the development of qualitative research methods across a wide variety of academic disciplines, among other initiatives.
METHODSPACE An online home of the research methods community, where practicing researchers share how to make research easier.
Social Research Association, UK The SRA is the membership organisation for social researchers in the UK and beyond. It supports researchers via training, guidance, publications, research ethics, events, branches, and careers.
Social Science Research Council The SSRC administers fellowships and research grants that support the innovation and evaluation of new policy solutions. They convene researchers and stakeholders to share evidence-based policy solutions and incubate new research agendas, produce online knowledge platforms and technical reports that catalog research-based policy solutions, and support mentoring programs that broaden problem-solving research opportunities.
<< Previous: Taguette
Next: Types of Interviews >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

Qualitative Interviewing

Reference work entry
First Online: 13 January 2019
Cite this reference work entry

Sally Nathan 2 ,
Christy Newman 3 &
Kari Lancaster 3

4701 Accesses

26 Citations

8 Altmetric

Qualitative interviewing is a foundational method in qualitative research and is widely used in health research and the social sciences. Both qualitative semi-structured and in-depth unstructured interviews use verbal communication, mostly in face-to-face interactions, to collect data about the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of participants. Interviews are an accessible, often affordable, and effective method to understand the socially situated world of research participants. The approach is typically informed by an interpretive framework where the data collected is not viewed as evidence of the truth or reality of a situation or experience but rather a context-bound subjective insight from the participants. The researcher needs to be open to new insights and to privilege the participant’s experience in data collection. The data from qualitative interviews is not generalizable, but its exploratory nature permits the collection of rich data which can answer questions about which little is already known. This chapter introduces the reader to qualitative interviewing, the range of traditions within which interviewing is utilized as a method, and highlights the advantages and some of the challenges and misconceptions in its application. The chapter also provides practical guidance on planning and conducting interview studies. Three case examples are presented to highlight the benefits and risks in the use of interviewing with different participants, providing situated insights as well as advice about how to go about learning to interview if you are a novice.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF
Durable hardcover edition
Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Interviews in the social sciences

Interviewing in Qualitative Research

Baez B. Confidentiality in qualitative research: reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qual Res. 2002;2(1):35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794102002001638 .

Article Google Scholar

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications; 2013.

Google Scholar

Braun V, Clarke V, Gray D. Collecting qualitative data: a practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

Book Google Scholar

Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin; 1998.

Davies MB. Doing a successful research project: using qualitative or quantitative methods. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2007.

Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Liamputtong P. Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

Foster M, Nathan S, Ferry M. The experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(5):531–9.

Gillham B. The research interview. London: Continuum; 2000.

Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.

Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P. In-depth interview. In: The practice of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011. p. 119–47

Irvine A. Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: a comparative exploration. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(3):202–20.

Johnson JM. In-depth interviewing. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: context and method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.

Kvale S. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.

Kvale S. Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications; 2007.

Lancaster K. Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(1):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555 .

Leavy P. Method meets art: arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.

Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007.

Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 89–102.

McLellan E, MacQueen KM, Neidig JL. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Methods. 2003;15(1):63–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239573 .

Minichiello V, Aroni R, Hays T. In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis. 3rd ed. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia; 2008.

Morris ZS. The truth about interviewing elites. Politics. 2009;29(3):209–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2009.01357.x .

Nathan S, Foster M, Ferry M. Peer and sexual relationships in the experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30(4):419–27.

National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Australian Government; 2007.

Neal S, McLaughlin E. Researching up? Interviews, emotionality and policy-making elites. J Soc Policy. 2009;38(04):689–707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409990018 .

O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106 .

Ostrander S. “Surely you're not in this just to be helpful”: access, rapport and interviews in three studies of elites. In: Hertz R, Imber J, editors. Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995. p. 133–50.

Chapter Google Scholar

Patton M. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.

Punch KF. Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage; 2005.

Rhodes T, Bernays S, Houmoller K. Parents who use drugs: accounting for damage and its limitation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(8):1489–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.028 .

Riessman CK. Narrative analysis. London: Sage; 1993.

Ritchie J. Not everything can be reduced to numbers. In: Berglund C, editor. Health research. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 149–73.

Rubin H, Rubin I. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012.

Serry T, Liamputtong P. The in-depth interviewing method in health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 67–83.

Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. London: Sage; 2017.

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. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sally Nathan

Centre for Social Research in Health, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Christy Newman & Kari Lancaster

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Nathan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nathan, S., Newman, C., Lancaster, K. (2019). Qualitative Interviewing. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4

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

Share this entry

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

The Ultimate Guide to Qualitative Research - Part 1: The Basics

Introduction and overview
What is qualitative research?
What is qualitative data?
Examples of qualitative data
Qualitative vs. quantitative research
Mixed methods
Qualitative research preparation
Theoretical perspective
Theoretical framework
Literature reviews
Research question
Conceptual framework
Conceptual vs. theoretical framework
Data collection
Qualitative research methods
Introduction

What is an interview and its purpose in qualitative research?

What are some examples of interviews in research, how to carry out great interviews in qualitative research, fundamental types of interviews, process of conducting an interview.

Focus groups
Observational research
Case studies
Ethnographical research

Ethical considerations

Confidentiality and privacy
Power dynamics
Reflexivity

Interviews: Research methods and approaches

As a qualitative research method, interviewing is widely used to gather in-depth information from participants about their experiences, opinions, and perspectives on a specific topic. There are various qualitative research techniques for interviews available to researchers to achieve the greatest potential in data collection .

This section will provide an overview of the importance of interviews, the different types of interviews, tools for conducting interviews, analysis of interview data , and ethical considerations in this research method. Note that the focus group interview is a related concept but will be discussed in greater detail in the next section of this guide, as focus groups have slightly different dynamics to consider.

Interviews, as a qualitative research method , play a pivotal role in uncovering complexities in human behavior and decision-making. Researchers can observe behavior, on the one hand, or they can investigate the perspectives and values informing that behavior by interviewing research participants.

Purpose and importance

Interviews allow researchers to delve into the subjective experiences of individuals, providing insights that may not be accessible through other research methods. They illuminate people's perceptions, thoughts, feelings, and understandings about a particular phenomenon. Data representing these views can form the foundation for identifying recurring themes regarding that phenomenon.

Unlike quantitative methods, which typically collect numerical data that can be statistically analyzed, interviews capture rich, detailed data in the form of words, ideas, and themes. They allow researchers to collect data on people's experiences in a manner that is sensitive to the context and the individual's perspective. Through interviews, researchers can explore the meanings people attribute to their experiences and gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena being studied.

Interviews also empower participants by giving them a voice. The interviewee has the opportunity to express their views, feelings, and experiences in their own words. This participatory aspect of interviews underscores the respect for individual experiences and perspectives, which is a central tenet of qualitative research.

Comparing interviews with other methods

While interviews share many similarities with other qualitative methods, they also have unique features that set them apart. Unlike interviews, methods like observations are more passive and rely more on the researcher's interpretation of events.

On the other hand, interviews actively involve participants in the data generation process. Compared to surveys , which may limit responses to predetermined choices or word limits, interviews allow for open-ended responses and the flexibility to explore topics in depth.

However, it's worth noting that interviews do not have to be a stand-alone method. They are often used with other methods, such as observation or document analysis , in a multi-method or mixed-methods research design . This combination of methods can enhance the richness and credibility of the data collected, providing a more holistic understanding of the research problem.

The qualitative research interview can be conducted in various formats, each with its own strengths and limitations. Choosing the appropriate type of interview to use largely depends on the research question, the nature of the topic, the characteristics of the participants, and the resources available to the researcher.

Face-to-face interviews

In-person interviews are often considered the traditional form of interviewing. They involve a direct conversation between the interviewer and the interviewee. This form allows for comprehensive communication as it includes verbal and non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice.

This type of interview allows for immediate clarification of responses and can help foster rapport between the interviewer and interviewee, which may lead to richer, more nuanced data. However, these kinds of interviews can be time-consuming, expensive, and limited by geographic location.

Telephone interviews

Telephone interviews can be a practical alternative when face-to-face interviews are not feasible due to distance, time, or budget constraints. Phone interviews allow researchers to reach participants who may be geographically dispersed and offer a level of anonymity that may encourage candid responses, particularly on sensitive topics.

However, they might lack non-verbal cues that can provide additional context to a participant's responses. A phone interview may differ from a conversation in person in that you can't see someone's face, gestures, or other body language, which might be useful for contextualizing detailed information.

Online/internet-based interviews

Online or internet-based interviews conducted through platforms such as Zoom, Skype, or email have become increasingly popular in recent years. They can be synchronous (occurring in real-time, like video calls) or asynchronous (participants respond in their own time, such as email interviews).

These interviews can reach participants globally, are often cost-effective, and can be more convenient for both the researcher and the participant. However, they rely on technology and internet access, which may not be available to all potential participants.

Effective interview research with ATLAS.ti

Get key insights from insightful analysis with ATLAS.ti. Try a free trial today.

Qualitative interviews are more than just casual conversations. Some qualitative research interviews may not follow a strict structure and allow the researcher to explore any topics in the moment. In contrast, other interviews may be highly structured and aim to collect the same kind of information across participants. As a matter of empirical research, research interviews require careful planning, execution, and reflection to ensure they yield valuable and trustworthy data. Here are some key components to consider:

Developing appropriate interview questions

The foundation of any successful interview lies in its questions. Good interview questions are open-ended, clear, and directly related to the research objectives. They should allow participants to share their experiences, opinions, and feelings without leading them toward certain answers. In qualitative research, it's often useful to have a mix of more and less structured questions, allowing for both depth and breadth in responses.

Building rapport with participants

Establishing rapport with interviewees is crucial to encourage open and honest responses. In-depth interviews can be challenging if the interviewer doesn't know the interviewee in detail or hasn't established the necessary trust.

Researchers establish rapport with interviewees by displaying empathy, active listening, and respect. Clarifying the purpose of the interview, ensuring confidentiality, and asking for consent before beginning can also help in building trust.

Note-taking and recording

Accurate and comprehensive documentation of interview data is critical. While audio or video recording is highly recommended for completeness and accuracy, it's also beneficial to take notes during or immediately after the interview. These notes can capture non-verbal cues, the interviewer's impressions, and any issues or incidents that occur during the interview.

Ethical considerations are paramount in any research involving human participants. Researchers must obtain informed consent , respect participants' privacy and confidentiality , and ensure participants understand their right to withdraw from the study at any time without any negative consequences. It's also important to be aware of power dynamics and strive for a respectful and equitable researcher-participant relationship.

The effectiveness of a qualitative interview largely depends on the thoughtfulness and rigor with which these components are addressed. Interviews are not just a data collection tool; they are a way of acknowledging and respecting participants' lived experiences and perspectives. Therefore, each component should be handled with utmost care and consideration.

Organize your data all in one place.

Text files, PDFs, videos, and pictures. ATLAS.ti helps you analyze them all. See how with a free trial.

The structure of an interview can greatly influence the data collected. The level of structure varies along a continuum, with structured and unstructured interviews occupying opposite ends of that spectrum.

Unstructured interviews

Unstructured interviews are characterized by their flexibility. The researcher usually only has a list of topics or themes to be covered, known as an interview guide, but the conversation does not follow a predetermined set of questions. Instead, the interviewer allows the conversation to flow naturally, following leads provided by the interviewee. An unstructured interview is particularly useful when the researcher is exploring a new area of study and aims to gather as much information as possible without preconceived notions.

Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews strike a balance between flexibility and structure. The researcher has a list of predetermined questions to conduct interviews but is free to ask additional open-ended questions or to deviate from the list based on the interviewee's responses. The semi-structured interview is the most common form of interview in qualitative research, as it provides deep, rich data while still ensuring that all necessary topics are covered.

Structured interviews

Structured interviews , sometimes called standardized interviews, are the most rigid form of interview. The researcher asks the same set of predetermined questions in the same order to all participants, with little to no deviation.

While a structured interview may limit the depth of data collected, it allows for greater consistency across interviews. This can be helpful for keeping responses confined to the research topic and comparing responses between participants.

In determining the level of structure for an interview, researchers should consider their research objectives, the nature of the topic, and the characteristics of the participants. Different structures lend themselves to different research goals, and the most effective interviewers are those who can adapt their approach based on the needs of their study.

Conducting an interview in qualitative research involves a series of well-planned steps before, during, and after the interview. These steps ensure that the process is systematic, ethical, and capable of yielding high-quality data.

Pre-interview preparation and research

Before conducting the interview, the researcher needs to thoroughly understand the research topic, define the purpose of the interview, and identify potential interviewees. Preparing an interview guide with key themes or questions is essential, though the level of detail will depend on the interview structure. Logistics, such as scheduling the interview at a convenient time and place for the participant and ensuring necessary equipment is available and working, also need to be addressed.

Conducting the interview

The interview begins with an introduction in which the interviewer explains the purpose of the interview, assures confidentiality, and obtains consent from the participant. Throughout the interview, the researcher should aim to build rapport, listen attentively, and adapt their questioning based on the interviewee's responses. Non-verbal cues should also be observed and noted, as they can provide additional insights.

Post-interview activities

After the interview, it is important to thank the participant for their time and contribution. Researchers should then promptly transcribe the interview while the details are still fresh. Reflections and observations about the interview should also be noted, including the context, the behavior of the participant, and any unexpected occurrences. These notes can provide valuable context during data analysis.

Executing each of these stages effectively requires not only good planning and organization but also interpersonal skills, flexibility, and respect for the participant. The quality of the data collected during an interview is largely dependent on how well the interview process is managed.

Transcribing interviews

The transcription of interview data is a critical step in the qualitative research process. This involves converting the recorded audio or video interviews into written text, providing a detailed account of the dialogues that took place during the interviews.

Transcriptions allow for more detailed examination, analysis, and reporting of the data. However, making transcriptions can be arduous and time-consuming. Here are some key considerations in the transcription process:

Types of transcription

There are two main types of transcription: verbatim and clean. Verbatim transcription involves writing down every single word, pause, and utterance made during the interview. This is a very detailed and time-consuming process, but it can be useful when the researcher needs to analyze not just the content of the interview but also the way it was expressed. On the other hand, clean transcription omits irrelevant elements like stutters, repetitions, and filler words, focusing instead on the core content of the conversation.

Manual vs. automated transcription

Researchers may choose to transcribe interviews manually or use transcription software. Manual transcription, while time-consuming, allows researchers to become intimately familiar with the data and can be more accurate, especially for complex or nuanced dialogues.

Automated transcription software, however, can save time and effort, particularly for large volumes of data, although it may require manual checking and correction for errors. Some researchers choose a hybrid approach, using software for the initial transcription and then manually checking and correcting the output.

Formatting and anonymizing transcripts

To facilitate analysis, transcripts should be formatted consistently, with clear identifiers for different speakers and timestamps for reference. If there are multiple interviewers or participants, each individual's speech should be clearly marked. Additionally, to ensure confidentiality, any personally identifiable information should be removed or anonymized in the transcript. This is especially important to consider in qualitative data, because participants may talk about aspects of their lives through which they could be identified, for instance if they mention specific names, their neighborhood, or place of work.

Quality checks

Finally, it's important to check the quality of the transcript. This could involve a second person checking the transcription against the audio or the researcher re-listening to portions of the recording to confirm accuracy. Any unclear or inaudible sections should be marked in the transcript.

Get the most out of interviews with ATLAS.ti

Collect, transcribe, and analyze interviews with our intuitive interface. Try it out with a free trial.

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

9.2 Qualitative interviews

Learning objectives.

Define interviews from the social scientific perspective
Identify when it is appropriate to employ interviews as a data-collection strategy
Identify the primary aim of in-depth interviews
Describe what makes qualitative interview techniques unique
Define the term interview guide and describe how to construct an interview guide
Outline the guidelines for constructing good qualitative interview questions
Describe how writing field notes and journaling function in qualitative research
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of interviews

Knowing how to create and conduct a good interview is an essential skill. Interviews are used by market researchers to learn how to sell their products, and journalists use interviews to get information from a whole host of people from VIPs to random people on the street. Police use interviews to investigate crimes.

In social science, interviews are a method of data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers. The questions are designed by the researcher to elicit information from interview participants on a specific topic or set of topics. These topics are informed by the research questions. Typically, interviews involve an in-person meeting between two people—an interviewer and an interviewee — but interviews need not be limited to two people, nor must they occur in-person.

The question of when to conduct an interview might be on your mind. Interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. They also have an advantage over surveys—they can change as you learn more information. In a survey, you cannot change what questions you ask if a participant’s response sparks some follow-up question in your mind. All participants must get the same questions. The questions you decided to put on your survey during the design stage determine what data you get. In an interview, however, you can follow up on new and unexpected topics that emerge during the conversation. Trusting in emergence and learning from participants are hallmarks of qualitative research. In this way, interviews are a useful method to use when you want to know the story behind the responses you might receive in a written survey.

Interviews are also useful when the topic you are studying is rather complex, requires lengthy explanation, or needs a dialogue between two people to thoroughly investigate. Also, if people will describe the process by which a phenomenon occurs, like how a person makes a decision, then interviews may be the best method for you. For example, you could use interviews to gather data about how people reach the decision not to have children and how others in their lives have responded to that decision. To understand these “how’s” you would need to have some back-and-forth dialogue with respondents. When they begin to tell you their story, inevitably new questions that hadn’t occurred to you from prior interviews would come up because each person’s story is unique. Also, because the process of choosing not to have children is complex for many people, describing that process by responding to closed-ended questions on a survey wouldn’t work particularly well.

Interview research is especially useful when:

You wish to gather very detailed information
You anticipate wanting to ask respondents follow-up questions based on their responses
You plan to ask questions that require lengthy explanation
You are studying a complex or potentially confusing topic to respondents
You are studying processes, such as how people make decisions

Qualitative interviews are sometimes called intensive or in-depth interviews. These interviews are semi-structured ; the researcher has a particular topic about which she would like to hear from the respondent, but questions are open-ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent. For in-depth interviews , the primary aim is to hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand and to hear it in their own words. In this section, we’ll take a look at how to conduct qualitative interviews, analyze interview data, and identify some of the strengths and weaknesses of this method.

Constructing an interview guide

Qualitative interviews might feel more like a conversation than an interview to respondents, but the researcher is in fact usually guiding the conversation with the goal in mind of gathering specific information from a respondent. Qualitative interviews use open-ended questions, which are questions that a researcher poses but does not provide answer options for. Open-ended questions are more demanding of participants than closed-ended questions because they require participants to come up with their own words, phrases, or sentences to respond.

In a qualitative interview, the researcher usually develops an interview guide in advance to refer to during the interview (or memorizes in advance of the interview). An interview guide is a list of questions or topics that the interviewer hopes to cover during the course of an interview. It is called a guide because it is simply that—it is used to guide the interviewer, but it is not set in stone. Think of an interview guide like an agenda for the day or a to-do list—both probably contain all the items you hope to check off or accomplish, though it probably won’t be the end of the world if you don’t accomplish everything on the list or if you don’t accomplish it in the exact order that you have it written down. Perhaps new events will come up that cause you to rearrange your schedule just a bit, or perhaps you simply won’t get to everything on the list.

Interview guides should outline issues that a researcher feels are likely to be important. Because participants are asked to provide answers in their own words and to raise points they believe are important, each interview is likely to flow a little differently. While the opening question in an in-depth interview may be the same across all interviews, from that point on, what the participant says will shape how the interview proceeds. Sometimes participants answer a question on the interview guide before it is asked. When the interviewer comes to that question later on in the interview, it’s a good idea to acknowledge that they already addressed part of this question and ask them if they have anything to add to their response. All of this uncertainty can make in-depth interviewing exciting and rather challenging. It takes a skilled interviewer to be able to ask questions; listen to respondents; and pick up on cues about when to follow up, when to move on, and when to simply let the participant speak without guidance or interruption.

As we’ve discussed, interview guides can list topics or questions. The specific format of an interview guide might depend on your style, experience, and comfort level as an interviewer or with your topic. Figure 9.1 provides an example of an interview guide for a study of how young people experience workplace sexual harassment. The guide is topic-based, rather than a list of specific questions. The ordering of the topics is important, though how each comes up during the interview may vary.

interview guide using topics, not questions

For interview guides that use questions, there can also be specific words or phrases for follow-up in case the participant does not mention those topics in their responses. These probes , as well as the questions are written out in the interview guide, but may not always be used. Figure 9.2 provides an example of an interview guide that uses questions rather than topics.

interview guide using questions rather than topic

As you might have guessed, interview guides do not appear out of thin air. They are the result of thoughtful and careful work on the part of a researcher. As you can see in both of the preceding guides, the topics and questions have been organized thematically and in the order in which they are likely to proceed (though keep in mind that the flow of a qualitative interview is in part determined by what a respondent has to say). Sometimes qualitative interviewers may create two versions of the interview guide: one version contains a very brief outline of the interview, perhaps with just topic headings, and another version contains detailed questions underneath each topic heading. In this case, the researcher might use the very detailed guide to prepare and practice in advance of actually conducting interviews and then just bring the brief outline to the interview. Bringing an outline, as opposed to a very long list of detailed questions, to an interview encourages the researcher to actually listen to what a participant is saying. An overly detailed interview guide can be difficult to navigate during an interview and could give respondents the mis-impression the interviewer is more interested in the questions than in the participant’s answers.

Constructing an interview guide often begins with brainstorming. There are no rules at the brainstorming stage—simply list all the topics and questions that come to mind when you think about your research question. Once you’ve got a pretty good list, you can begin to pare it down by cutting questions and topics that seem redundant and group similar questions and topics together. If you haven’t done so yet, you may also want to come up with question and topic headings for your grouped categories. You should also consult the scholarly literature to find out what kinds of questions other interviewers have asked in studies of similar topics and what theory indicates might be important. As with quantitative survey research, it is best not to place very sensitive or potentially controversial questions at the very beginning of your qualitative interview guide. You need to give participants the opportunity to warm up to the interview and to feel comfortable talking with you. Finally, get some feedback on your interview guide. Ask your friends, other researchers, and your professors for some guidance and suggestions once you’ve come up with what you think is a strong guide. Chances are they’ll catch a few things you hadn’t noticed. Once you begin your interviews, your participants may also suggest revisions or improvements.

In terms of the specific questions you include in your guide, there are a few guidelines worth noting. First, avoid questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no. Try to rephrase your questions in a way that invites longer responses from your interviewees. If you choose to include yes or no questions, be sure to include follow-up questions. Remember, one of the benefits of qualitative interviews is that you can ask participants for more information—be sure to do so. While it is a good idea to ask follow-up questions, try to avoid asking “why” as your follow-up question, as this particular question can come off as confrontational, even if that is not your intent. Often people won’t know how to respond to “why,” perhaps because they don’t even know why themselves. Instead of asking “why,” you say something like, “Could you tell me a little more about that?” This allows participants to explain themselves further without feeling that they’re being doubted or questioned in a hostile way.

Also, try to avoid phrasing your questions in a leading way. For example, rather than asking, “Don’t you think most people who don’t want to have children are selfish?” you could ask, “What comes to mind for you when you hear someone doesn’t want to have children?” Finally, remember to keep most, if not all, of your questions open-ended. The key to a successful qualitative interview is giving participants the opportunity to share information in their own words and in their own way. Documenting the decisions made along the way regarding which questions are used, thrown out, or revised can help a researcher remember the thought process behind the interview guide when she is analyzing the data. Additionally, it promotes the rigor of the qualitative project as a whole, ensuring the researcher is proceeding in a reflective and deliberate manner that can be checked by others reviewing her study.

Recording qualitative data

Even after the interview guide is constructed, the interviewer is not yet ready to begin conducting interviews. The researcher has to decide how to collect and maintain the information that is provided by participants. Researchers keep field notes or written recordings produced by the researcher during the data collection process. Field notes can be taken before, during, or after interviews. Field notes help researchers document what they observe, and in so doing, they form the first step of data analysis. Field notes may contain many things—observations of body language or environment, reflections on whether interview questions are working well, and connections between ideas that participants share.

Unfortunately, even the most diligent researcher cannot write down everything that is seen or heard during an interview. In particular, it is difficult for a researcher to be truly present and observant if she is also writing down everything the participant is saying. For this reason, it is quite common for interviewers to create audio recordings of the interviews they conduct. Recording interviews allows the researcher to focus on the interaction with the interview participant.

Of course, not all participants will feel comfortable being recorded and sometimes even the interviewer may feel that the subject is so sensitive that recording would be inappropriate. If this is the case, it is up to the researcher to balance excellent note-taking with exceptional question-asking and even better listening.

Whether you will be recording your interviews or not (and especially if not), practicing the interview in advance is crucial. Ideally, you’ll find a friend or two willing to participate in a couple of trial runs with you. Even better, find a friend or two who are similar in at least some ways to your sample. They can give you the best feedback on your questions and your interview demeanor.

Another issue interviewers face is documenting the decisions made during the data collection process. Qualitative research is open to new ideas that emerge through the data collection process. For example, a participant might suggest a new concept you hadn’t thought of before or define a concept in a new way. This may lead you to create new questions or ask questions in a different way to future participants. These processes should be documented in a process called journaling or memoing. Journal entries are notes to yourself about reflections or methodological decisions that emerge during the data collection process. Documenting these are important, as you’d be surprised how quickly you can forget what happened. Journaling makes sure that when it comes time to analyze your data, you remember how, when, and why certain changes were made. The discipline of journaling in qualitative research helps to ensure the rigor of the research process—that is its trustworthiness and authenticity which we will discuss later in this chapter.

Strengths and weaknesses of qualitative interviews

As we’ve mentioned in this section, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. Any topic can be explored in much more depth with interviews than with almost any other method. Not only are participants given the opportunity to elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods such as survey research, but they also are able share information with researchers in their own words and from their own perspectives. Whereas, quantitative research asks participants to fit their perspectives into the limited response options provided by the researcher. And because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes or the “how” of various phenomena. Yet another, and sometimes overlooked, benefit of in-person qualitative interviews is that researchers can make observations beyond those that a respondent is orally reporting. A respondent’s body language, and even their choice of time and location for the interview, might provide a researcher with useful data.

Of course, all these benefits come with some drawbacks. As with quantitative survey research, qualitative interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall specific details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors. Further, as you may have already guessed, qualitative interviewing is time-intensive and can be quite expensive. Creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, and conducting interviews are just the beginning. Writing out what was said in interviews and analyzing the qualitative interview data are time consuming processes. Keep in mind you are also asking for more of participants’ time than if you’d simply mailed them a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. Conducting qualitative interviews is not only labor-intensive but can also be emotionally taxing. Seeing and hearing the impact that social problems have on respondents is difficult. Researchers embarking on a qualitative interview project should keep in mind their own abilities to receive stories that may be difficult to hear.

Key Takeaways

Understanding how to design and conduct interview research is a useful skill to have.
In a social scientific interview, two or more people exchange information through a series of questions and answers.
Interview research is often used when detailed information is required and when a researcher wishes to examine processes.
In-depth interviews are semi-structured interviews where the researcher has topics and questions in mind to ask, but questions are open-ended and flow according to how the participant responds to each.
Interview guides can vary in format but should contain some outline of the topics you hope to cover during the course of an interview.
Qualitative interviews allow respondents to share information in their own words and are useful for gathering detailed information and understanding social processes.
Field notes and journaling are ways to document thoughts and decisions about the research process
Drawbacks of qualitative interviews include reliance on respondents’ accuracy and their intensity in terms of time, expense, and possible emotional strain.
Field notes- written notes produced by the researcher during the data collection process
In-depth interviews- interviews in which researchers hear from respondents about what they think is important about the topic at hand in the respondent’s own words
Interviews- a method of data collection that involves two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers
Interview guide- a list of questions or topics that the interviewer hopes to cover during the course of an interview
Journaling- making notes of emerging issues and changes during the research process
Semi-structured interviews- questions are open ended and may not be asked in exactly the same way or in exactly the same order to each and every respondent

Image attributions

interview restaurant a pair by alda2 CC-0

questions by geralt CC-0

Figure 9.1 is copied from Blackstone, A. (2012) Principles of sociological inquiry: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Saylor Foundation. Retrieved from: https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_principles-of-sociological-inquiry-qualitative-and-quantitative-methods/ Shared under CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0 License

writing by StockSnap CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explore the platform powering Experience Management

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

Popular Use Cases

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

Market Research

Partnerships
Marketplace

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

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

Try Qualtrics for free

How to carry out great interviews in qualitative research.

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

What is a qualitative research interview?

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

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

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

Free eBook: The qualitative research design handbook

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

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

Pros of qualitative interviews:

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

Cons of qualitative interviews:

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

Qualitative interview guides

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

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

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

Avoid bias in qualitative research interviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More tips for conducting qualitative interviews

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

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

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

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

Recording and transcribing interviews

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

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

Data analysis

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related resources

Market intelligence 10 min read, marketing insights 11 min read, ethnographic research 11 min read, qualitative vs quantitative research 13 min read, qualitative research questions 11 min read, qualitative research design 12 min read, primary vs secondary research 14 min read, request demo.

Ready to learn more about Qualtrics?

Account Logins

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

Recruitment
Communities
Methodify® Automated research
QualBoard® Digital Discussions
QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
Global Qualitative
Global Quantitative
In-Person Facilities
Healthcare Solutions
Research Consulting
Europe Solutions
Neuromarketing Tools
Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

Consumer Packaged Goods
Financial Services
Media Technology
Medical Device Manufacturing
Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.

Global Offices
Partnerships & Certifications
News & Media
Researcher Events

Take Your Research to the Next Level with Multi-Video AI Summaries

steve schlesinger, mrx council hall of fame

Steve Schlesinger Inducted Into 2024 Market Research Council Hall of Fame

professional woman looking down at tablet in office at night

Sago Announces Launch of Sago Health to Elevate Healthcare Research

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

Case Studies
Knowledge Kit

When Europe Hits Pause: The Summer Slowdown and What It Means for Business

The Swing Voters Project, August 2024: Wisconsin

Partner with us
Join our panel

A Step-by-Step Guide for a Successful Qualitative Interview

Resources , Blog

Key Takeaways:

Qualitative interviews provide in-depth insights from individual respondents, and are useful when follow-up or clarification is needed
Clarity of objectives and audience is essential to gathering actionable insights from your qualitative research project
Build a strong researcher-respondent relationship to elicit honest and engaged responses

Qualitative research uses in-depth interviews to gain rich non-numerical data from individuals. This data helps researchers understand concepts, opinions, and personal experiences. Interviews are an excellent method to discover the “why” behind people’s preferences or behaviors, but they require a thoughtful approach.

Continue reading as we explore use cases and define the steps to follow for a successful qualitative interview.

In this Article:

When Should I Use Qualitative Interviews? Conducting a Successful Qualitative Interview – Step by Step Guide

1. Determine Your Objective 2. Understand Your Audience 3. Design Appropriate Questions 4. Organize and Prepare for the Interview 5. Conduct the Interview 6. Transcribe and Analyze Responses 7. Learn, Adapt, and Evolve Your Interviews

Start Conducting Qualitative Interviews with Sago

Ready to conduct your qualitative interviews.

Book a consultation with our team for help with recruitment, facilities, and more.

Book a consultation

When Should I Use Qualitative Interviews?

Qualitative research is used to obtain context and describe underlying factors. It describes “how” and “why.”

Perhaps a business wants to understand what product features are most or least important to each target segment. They could ask:

“Between product A and product B, how would the features in each product influence your buying decision?”

This creates an opportunity for the respondent to reveal what features are personally important and unimportant for them. In an interview setting, researchers can go deeper into why these features are important, and how important each feature is in comparison to others.

Qualitative interviews are best when:

You need in-depth insights
You want answers to a range of follow-up questions, building on prior responses
Your questions require significant explanation and reasoning
You explore complex and confusing topics with respondents
You want to understand what drives consumer decisions
You want to hear the unique voice of your audience first-hand

Conducting a Successful Qualitative Interview – Step by Step Guide

Knowing when to use a qualitative interview is a great first step, but now you need to understand how best to conduct one. Our experts share a range of steps to follow as you embark on a qualitative interview and best practices for each.

1. Determine Your Objective

What are you trying to understand? The answer to this is critical in guiding your qualitative research process.

Some common examples:

Understand consumer perceptions of products, services, or brand
Reveal strengths and weaknesses in product or service portfolios
Understand consumer buying behaviors
Test the usability of a website or digital service
Emotional reactions to packaging design and marketing assets

2. Understand Your Audience

Who is your target audience for this project? Have a clear understanding of who you need to hear from to meet your research objective.

Here are some examples of objectives, and the sample that is most suited to each:

If you want to understand how existing customers perceive the quality of your products, you need a sample of existing customers.
If you want to understand why consumers choose competitor products over yours, you need a sample of non-customers who buy products from your primary competitor.
If you want to understand how the average person perceives your brand, you need a combination of existing customers, non-customers with awareness of your brand, and unaware non-customers.

3. Design Appropriate Questions

The questions you ask must align with the objectives of your research without being leading or introducing bias.

Here are some best practices when designing research questions:

Keep questions open-ended. This increases the depth of insight obtained.
Follow a structure. For instance, a tree diagram where every question has pre-determined follow-up questions based on anticipated answers. A planned structure increases the quality and validity of responses and reduces distractions.
Design questions that simplify data collection and analysis. Format the responses collected to be compatible with your tools during data ingestion.
Keep it simple. Focus on clarity when designing research questions to improve respondent understanding and engagement.

4. Organize and Prepare for the Interview

Relationships are essential to the interview process. Preparation beforehand helps build the respondent-researcher relationship. This relationship creates trust and elicits more honest and in-depth answers from participants. Here are some ways to prepare for an interview:

Give respondents as much information as possible—such as question lists and question intent. Put this into an interview handbook to improve engagement and effectiveness.
Conduct the interview in a suitable environment with minimal distractions and stressors.
Have the necessary materials to record information.
Interview yourself to identify and fix problems before you start interviewing others.

5. Conduct the Interview

With a structure in place, researchers have a clear plan of action throughout the interview.

During the interview, stay attuned to emotional reactions and body language with the following techniques:

Create a relaxed atmosphere. Ask respondents about their lives, work, and passions to establish a connection.
Give respondents your full attention. An engaged researcher encourages an engaged respondent. Plus, they gave up their personal time to help you out.
Read body language. Is the respondent crossing their arms, looking down to the floor, or not making eye contact? These reactions may signal discomfort or anxiety, offering an opportunity to build rapport.
Follow the questions but be flexible when listening. Deviations from the script may lead to unexpected and valuable insights.

6. Transcribe and Analyze Responses

Convert recorded audio responses to text. Decide early which tool or solution will work best for your needs.

Similarly, researchers may need to annotate video responses to describe behaviors and surrounding context before analysis; e.g., this person gritted their teeth during that response, that person’s vocal tone was anxious and uncertain, etc.

Transcribe responses into a format ready for analysis upon ingestion into your business intelligence tools.

7. Learn, Adapt, and Evolve Your Interviews

Each interview is an opportunity to improve the process. Take time after a project to evaluate how it went.

What did you learn about the process? Was it easy or confusing? Was the respondent comfortable or on edge? Did you get the responses you needed?

Scrutinize your interview approach. Look for ways to improve and innovate the process for better outcomes next time.

Now, you should have a good idea of when to use and how to approach qualitative interviews.

Sago has decades of experience across both quantitative and qualitative research. Our experts find interviews ideal for in-depth qualitative insights that guide new product and service development or improve market positioning for existing offerings. We offer both in-person facilities and online spaces to conduct qualitative interviews.

If you still have questions, get in touch with Sago for help with your next research project.

qualboard mutli-video ai summaries blog thumbnail

Efficiency Unleashed: Quick Insights with QualBoard’s Multi-Video AI Summaries

Enhancing Efficiency with All-in-One Digital Qual

How Connecting with Gen C Can Help Your Brand Grow

The Deciders, July 2024: Former Nikki Haley Voters

smiling woman sitting at a table looking at her phone with a coffee cup in front of her

OnDemand: Crack the Code: Evolving Panel Expectations

toddler girl surrounded by stuffed animals and using an ipad

Pioneering the Future of Pediatric Health

swing voters, july 2024 florida thumbnail

The Swing Voter Project, July 2024: Florida

Exploring Travel Trends and Behaviors for Summer 2024

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know

83 Qualitative Research Questions & Examples

Free Website Traffic Checker

Discover your competitors' strengths and leverage them to achieve your own success

Qualitative research questions help you understand consumer sentiment. They’re strategically designed to show organizations how and why people feel the way they do about a brand, product, or service. It looks beyond the numbers and is one of the most telling types of market research a company can do.

The UK Data Service describes this perfectly, saying, “The value of qualitative research is that it gives a voice to the lived experience .”

Read on to see seven use cases and 83 qualitative research questions, with the added bonus of examples that show how to get similar insights faster with Similarweb Research Intelligence.

Inspirational quote about customer insights

What is a qualitative research question?

A qualitative research question explores a topic in-depth, aiming to better understand the subject through interviews, observations, and other non-numerical data. Qualitative research questions are open-ended, helping to uncover a target audience’s opinions, beliefs, and motivations.

How to choose qualitative research questions?

Choosing the right qualitative research questions can be incremental to the success of your research and the findings you uncover. Here’s my six-step process for choosing the best qualitative research questions.

Start by understanding the purpose of your research. What do you want to learn? What outcome are you hoping to achieve?
Consider who you are researching. What are their experiences, attitudes, and beliefs? How can you best capture these in your research questions ?
Keep your questions open-ended . Qualitative research questions should not be too narrow or too broad. Aim to ask specific questions to provide meaningful answers but broad enough to allow for exploration.
Balance your research questions. You don’t want all of your questions to be the same type. Aim to mix up your questions to get a variety of answers.
Ensure your research questions are ethical and free from bias. Always have a second (and third) person check for unconscious bias.
Consider the language you use. Your questions should be written in a way that is clear and easy to understand. Avoid using jargon , acronyms, or overly technical language.

Types of qualitative research questions

For a question to be considered qualitative, it usually needs to be open-ended. However, as I’ll explain, there can sometimes be a slight cross-over between quantitative and qualitative research questions.

Open-ended questions

These allow for a wide range of responses and can be formatted with multiple-choice answers or a free-text box to collect additional details. The next two types of qualitative questions are considered open questions, but each has its own style and purpose.

Probing questions are used to delve deeper into a respondent’s thoughts, such as “Can you tell me more about why you feel that way?”
Comparative questions ask people to compare two or more items, such as “Which product do you prefer and why?” These qualitative questions are highly useful for understanding brand awareness , competitive analysis , and more.

Closed-ended questions

These ask respondents to choose from a predetermined set of responses, such as “On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the new product?” While they’re traditionally quantitative, adding a free text box that asks for extra comments into why a specific rating was chosen will provide qualitative insights alongside their respective quantitative research question responses.

Ranking questions get people to rank items in order of preference, such as “Please rank these products in terms of quality.” They’re advantageous in many scenarios, like product development, competitive analysis, and brand awareness.
Likert scale questions ask people to rate items on a scale, such as “On a scale of 1-5, how satisfied are you with the new product?” Ideal for placement on websites and emails to gather quick, snappy feedback.

Qualitative research question examples

There are many applications of qualitative research and lots of ways you can put your findings to work for the success of your business. Here’s a summary of the most common use cases for qualitative questions and examples to ask.

Qualitative questions for identifying customer needs and motivations

These types of questions help you find out why customers choose products or services and what they are looking for when making a purchase.

What factors do you consider when deciding to buy a product?
What would make you choose one product or service over another?
What are the most important elements of a product that you would buy?
What features do you look for when purchasing a product?
What qualities do you look for in a company’s products?
Do you prefer localized or global brands when making a purchase?
How do you determine the value of a product?
What do you think is the most important factor when choosing a product?
How do you decide if a product or service is worth the money?
Do you have any specific expectations when purchasing a product?
Do you prefer to purchase products or services online or in person?
What kind of customer service do you expect when buying a product?
How do you decide when it is time to switch to a different product?
Where do you research products before you decide to buy?
What do you think is the most important customer value when making a purchase?

Qualitative research questions to enhance customer experience

Use these questions to reveal insights into how customers interact with a company’s products or services and how those experiences can be improved.

What aspects of our product or service do customers find most valuable?
How do customers perceive our customer service?
What factors are most important to customers when purchasing?
What do customers think of our brand?
What do customers think of our current marketing efforts?
How do customers feel about the features and benefits of our product?
How do customers feel about the price of our product or service?
How could we improve the customer experience?
What do customers think of our website or app?
What do customers think of our customer support?
What could we do to make our product or service easier to use?
What do customers think of our competitors?
What is your preferred way to access our site?
How do customers feel about our delivery/shipping times?
What do customers think of our loyalty programs?

Qualitative research question example for customer experience

‍♀️ Question: What is your preferred way to access our site?
Insight sought: How mobile-dominant are consumers? Should you invest more in mobile optimization or mobile marketing?
Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: While using this type of question is ideal if you have a large database to survey when placed on a site or sent to a limited customer list, it only gives you a point-in-time perspective from a limited group of people.
A new approach: You can get better, broader insights quicker with Similarweb Digital Research Intelligence. To fully inform your research, you need to know preferences at the industry or market level.
⏰ Time to insight: 30 seconds
✅ How it’s done: Similarweb offers multiple ways to answer this question without going through a lengthy qualitative research process.

First, I’m going to do a website market analysis of the banking credit and lending market in the finance sector to get a clearer picture of industry benchmarks.

Here, I can view device preferences across any industry or market instantly. It shows me the device distribution for any country across any period. This clearly answers the question of how mobile dominate my target audience is , with 59.79% opting to access site via a desktop vs. 40.21% via mobile

I then use the trends section to show me the exact split between mobile and web traffic for each key player in my space. Let’s say I’m about to embark on a competitive campaign that targets customers of Chase and Bank of America ; I can see both their audiences are highly desktop dominant compared with others in their space .

Qualitative question examples for developing new products or services

Research questions like this can help you understand customer pain points and give you insights to develop products that meet those needs.

What is the primary reason you would choose to purchase a product from our company?
How do you currently use products or services that are similar to ours?
Is there anything that could be improved with products currently on the market?
What features would you like to see added to our products?
How do you prefer to contact a customer service team?
What do you think sets our company apart from our competitors?
What other product or service offerings would like to see us offer?
What type of information would help you make decisions about buying a product?
What type of advertising methods are most effective in getting your attention?
What is the biggest deterrent to purchasing products from us?

Qualitative research question example for service development

‍♀️ Question: What type of advertising methods are most effective in getting your attention?
Insight sought: The marketing channels and/or content that performs best with a target audience .
Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: When using qualitative research surveys to answer questions like this, the sample size is limited, and bias could be at play.
A better approach: The most authentic insights come from viewing real actions and results that take place in the digital world. No questions or answers are needed to uncover this intel, and the information you seek is readily available in less than a minute.
⏰ Time to insight: 5 minutes
✅ How it’s done: There are a few ways to approach this. You can either take an industry-wide perspective or hone in on specific competitors to unpack their individual successes. Here, I’ll quickly show a snapshot with a whole market perspective.

qualitative example question - marketing channels

Using the market analysis element of Similarweb Digital Intelligence, I select my industry or market, which I’ve kept as banking and credit. A quick click into marketing channels shows me which channels drive the highest traffic in my market. Taking direct traffic out of the equation, for now, I can see that referrals and organic traffic are the two highest-performing channels in this market.

Similarweb allows me to view the specific referral partners and pages across these channels.

qualitative question example - Similarweb referral channels

Looking closely at referrals in this market, I’ve chosen chase.com and its five closest rivals . I select referrals in the channel traffic element of marketing channels. I see that Capital One is a clear winner, gaining almost 25 million visits due to referral partnerships.

Next, I get to see exactly who is referring traffic to Capital One and the total traffic share for each referrer. I can see the growth as a percentage and how that has changed, along with an engagement score that rates the average engagement level of that audience segment. This is particularly useful when deciding on which new referral partnerships to pursue.

Once I’ve identified the channels and campaigns that yield the best results, I can then use Similarweb to dive into the various ad creatives and content that have the greatest impact.

Qualitative research example for ad creatives

These ads are just a few of those listed in the creatives section from my competitive website analysis of Capital One. You can filter this list by the specific campaign, publishers, and ad networks to view those that matter to you most. You can also discover video ad creatives in the same place too.

In just five minutes ⏰

I’ve captured audience loyalty statistics across my market
Spotted the most competitive players
Identified the marketing channels my audience is most responsive to
I know which content and campaigns are driving the highest traffic volume
I’ve created a target list for new referral partners and have been able to prioritize this based on results and engagement figures from my rivals
I can see the types of creatives that my target audience is responding to, giving me ideas for ways to generate effective copy for future campaigns

Qualitative questions to determine pricing strategies

Companies need to make sure pricing stays relevant and competitive. Use these questions to determine customer perceptions on pricing and develop pricing strategies to maximize profits and reduce churn.

How do you feel about our pricing structure?
How does our pricing compare to other similar products?
What value do you feel you get from our pricing?
How could we make our pricing more attractive?
What would be an ideal price for our product?
Which features of our product that you would like to see priced differently?
What discounts or deals would you like to see us offer?
How do you feel about the amount you have to pay for our product?

Get Faster Answers to Qualitative Research Questions with Similarweb Today

Qualitative research question example for determining pricing strategies

‍♀️ Question: What discounts or deals would you like to see us offer?
Insight sought: The promotions or campaigns that resonate with your target audience.
Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: Consumers don’t always recall the types of ads or campaigns they respond to. Over time, their needs and habits change. Your sample size is limited to those you ask, leaving a huge pool of unknowns at play.
A better approach: While qualitative insights are good to know, you get the most accurate picture of the highest-performing promotion and campaigns by looking at data collected directly from the web. These analytics are real-world, real-time, and based on the collective actions of many, instead of the limited survey group you approach. By getting a complete picture across an entire market, your decisions are better informed and more aligned with current market trends and behaviors.
✅ How it’s done: Similarweb’s Popular Pages feature shows the content, products, campaigns, and pages with the highest growth for any website. So, if you’re trying to unpack the successes of others in your space and find out what content resonates with a target audience, there’s a far quicker way to get answers to these questions with Similarweb.

Here, I’m using Capital One as an example site. I can see trending pages on their site showing the largest increase in page views. Other filters include campaign, best-performing, and new–each of which shows you page URLs, share of traffic, and growth as a percentage. This page is particularly useful for staying on top of trending topics , campaigns, and new content being pushed out in a market by key competitors.

Qualitative research questions for product development teams

It’s vital to stay in touch with changing consumer needs. These questions can also be used for new product or service development, but this time, it’s from the perspective of a product manager or development team.

What are customers’ primary needs and wants for this product?
What do customers think of our current product offerings?
What is the most important feature or benefit of our product?
How can we improve our product to meet customers’ needs better?
What do customers like or dislike about our competitors’ products?
What do customers look for when deciding between our product and a competitor’s?
How have customer needs and wants for this product changed over time?
What motivates customers to purchase this product?
What is the most important thing customers want from this product?
What features or benefits are most important when selecting a product?
What do customers perceive to be our product’s pros and cons?
What would make customers switch from a competitor’s product to ours?
How do customers perceive our product in comparison to similar products?
What do customers think of our pricing and value proposition?
What do customers think of our product’s design, usability, and aesthetics?

Qualitative questions examples to understand customer segments

Market segmentation seeks to create groups of consumers with shared characteristics. Use these questions to learn more about different customer segments and how to target them with tailored messaging.

What motivates customers to make a purchase?
How do customers perceive our brand in comparison to our competitors?
How do customers feel about our product quality?
How do customers define quality in our products?
What factors influence customers’ purchasing decisions ?
What are the most important aspects of customer service?
What do customers think of our customer service?
What do customers think of our pricing?
How do customers rate our product offerings?
How do customers prefer to make purchases (online, in-store, etc.)?

Qualitative research question example for understanding customer segments

‍♀️ Question: Which social media channels are you most active on?
Insight sought: Formulate a social media strategy . Specifically, the social media channels most likely to succeed with a target audience.
Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: Qualitative research question responses are limited to those you ask, giving you a limited sample size. Questions like this are usually at risk of some bias, and this may not be reflective of real-world actions.
A better approach: Get a complete picture of social media preferences for an entire market or specific audience belonging to rival firms. Insights are available in real-time, and are based on the actions of many, not a select group of participants. Data is readily available, easy to understand, and expandable at a moment’s notice.
✅ How it’s done: Using Similarweb’s website analysis feature, you can get a clear breakdown of social media stats for your audience using the marketing channels element. It shows the percentage of visits from each channel to your site, respective growth, and specific referral pages by each platform. All data is expandable, meaning you can select any platform, period, and region to drill down and get more accurate intel, instantly.

Qualitative question example social media

This example shows me Bank of America’s social media distribution, with YouTube , Linkedin , and Facebook taking the top three spots, and accounting for almost 80% of traffic being driven from social media.

When doing any type of market research, it’s important to benchmark performance against industry averages and perform a social media competitive analysis to verify rival performance across the same channels.

Qualitative questions to inform competitive analysis

Organizations must assess market sentiment toward other players to compete and beat rival firms. Whether you want to increase market share , challenge industry leaders , or reduce churn, understanding how people view you vs. the competition is key.

What is the overall perception of our competitors’ product offerings in the market?
What attributes do our competitors prioritize in their customer experience?
What strategies do our competitors use to differentiate their products from ours?
How do our competitors position their products in relation to ours?
How do our competitors’ pricing models compare to ours?
What do consumers think of our competitors’ product quality?
What do consumers think of our competitors’ customer service?
What are the key drivers of purchase decisions in our market?
What is the impact of our competitors’ marketing campaigns on our market share ? 10. How do our competitors leverage social media to promote their products?

Qualitative research question example for competitive analysis

‍♀️ Question: What other companies do you shop with for x?
Insight sought: W ho are your competitors? Which of your rival’s sites do your customers visit? How loyal are consumers in your market?
Challenges with traditional qualitative research methods: Sample size is limited, and customers could be unwilling to reveal which competitors they shop with, or how often they around. Where finances are involved, people can act with reluctance or bias, and be unwilling to reveal other suppliers they do business with.
A better approach: Get a complete picture of your audience’s loyalty, see who else they shop with, and how many other sites they visit in your competitive group. Find out the size of the untapped opportunity and which players are doing a better job at attracting unique visitors – without having to ask people to reveal their preferences.
✅ How it’s done: Similarweb website analysis shows you the competitive sites your audience visits, giving you access to data that shows cross-visitation habits, audience loyalty, and untapped potential in a matter of minutes.

Qualitative research example for audience analysis

Using the audience interests element of Similarweb website analysis, you can view the cross-browsing behaviors of a website’s audience instantly. You can see a matrix that shows the percentage of visitors on a target site and any rival site they may have visited.

Qualitative research question example for competitive analysis

With the Similarweb audience overlap feature, view the cross-visitation habits of an audience across specific websites. In this example, I chose chase.com and its four closest competitors to review. For each intersection, you see the number of unique visitors and the overall proportion of each site’s audience it represents. It also shows the volume of unreached potential visitors.

Here, you can see a direct comparison of the audience loyalty represented in a bar graph. It shows a breakdown of each site’s audience based on how many other sites they have visited. Those sites with the highest loyalty show fewer additional sites visited.

From the perspective of chase.com, I can see 47% of their visitors do not visit rival sites. 33% of their audience visited 1 or more sites in this group, 14% visited 2 or more sites, 4% visited 3 or more sites, and just 0.8% viewed all sites in this comparison.

How to answer qualitative research questions with Similarweb

Similarweb Research Intelligence drastically improves market research efficiency and time to insight. Both of these can impact the bottom line and the pace at which organizations can adapt and flex when markets shift, and rivals change tactics.

Outdated practices, while still useful, take time . And with a quicker, more efficient way to garner similar insights, opting for the fast lane puts you at a competitive advantage.

With a birds-eye view of the actions and behaviors of companies and consumers across a market , you can answer certain research questions without the need to plan, do, and review extensive qualitative market research .

Wrapping up

Qualitative research methods have been around for centuries. From designing the questions to finding the best distribution channels, collecting and analyzing findings takes time to get the insights you need. Similarweb Digital Research Intelligence drastically improves efficiency and time to insight. Both of which impact the bottom line and the pace at which organizations can adapt and flex when markets shift.

Similarweb’s suite of digital intelligence solutions offers unbiased, accurate, honest insights you can trust for analyzing any industry, market, or audience.

Methodologies used for data collection are robust, transparent, and trustworthy.
Clear presentation of data via an easy-to-use, intuitive platform.
It updates dynamically–giving you the freshest data about an industry or market.
Data is available via an API – so you can plug into platforms like Tableau or PowerBI to streamline your analyses.
Filter and refine results according to your needs.

Are quantitative or qualitative research questions best?

Both have their place and purpose in market research. Qualitative research questions seek to provide details, whereas quantitative market research gives you numerical statistics that are easier and quicker to analyze. You get more flexibility with qualitative questions, and they’re non-directional.

What are the advantages of qualitative research?

Qualitative research is advantageous because it allows researchers to better understand their subject matter by exploring people’s attitudes, behaviors, and motivations in a particular context. It also allows researchers to uncover new insights that may not have been discovered with quantitative research methods.

What are some of the challenges of qualitative research?

Qualitative research can be time-consuming and costly, typically involving in-depth interviews and focus groups. Additionally, there are challenges associated with the reliability and validity of the collected data, as there is no universal standard for interpreting the results.

by Liz March

Digital Research Specialist

Liz March has 15 years of experience in content creation. She enjoys the outdoors, F1, and reading, and is pursuing a BSc in Environmental Science.

Importance of Market Research: 9 Reasons Why It’s Crucial for Your Business

Audience Segmentation: Definition, Importance & Types

Geographic Segmentation: Definition, Pros & Cons, Examples, and More

Demographic Segmentation: The Key To Transforming Your Marketing Strategy

Unlocking Consumer Behavior: What Makes Your Customers Tick?

Customer Segmentation: Expert Tips on Understanding Your Audience

Wondering what similarweb can do for your business.

Give it a try or talk to our insights team — don’t worry, it’s free!

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
Neurol Res Pract

How to use and assess qualitative research methods

Loraine busetto.

1 Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Wolfgang Wick

2 Clinical Cooperation Unit Neuro-Oncology, German Cancer Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany

Christoph Gumbinger

Associated data.

Not applicable.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions, and focussing on intervention improvement. The most common methods of data collection are document study, (non-) participant observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups. For data analysis, field-notes and audio-recordings are transcribed into protocols and transcripts, and coded using qualitative data management software. Criteria such as checklists, reflexivity, sampling strategies, piloting, co-coding, member-checking and stakeholder involvement can be used to enhance and assess the quality of the research conducted. Using qualitative in addition to quantitative designs will equip us with better tools to address a greater range of research problems, and to fill in blind spots in current neurological research and practice.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of qualitative research methods, including hands-on information on how they can be used, reported and assessed. This article is intended for beginning qualitative researchers in the health sciences as well as experienced quantitative researchers who wish to broaden their understanding of qualitative research.

What is qualitative research?

Qualitative research is defined as “the study of the nature of phenomena”, including “their quality, different manifestations, the context in which they appear or the perspectives from which they can be perceived” , but excluding “their range, frequency and place in an objectively determined chain of cause and effect” [ 1 ]. This formal definition can be complemented with a more pragmatic rule of thumb: qualitative research generally includes data in form of words rather than numbers [ 2 ].

Why conduct qualitative research?

Because some research questions cannot be answered using (only) quantitative methods. For example, one Australian study addressed the issue of why patients from Aboriginal communities often present late or not at all to specialist services offered by tertiary care hospitals. Using qualitative interviews with patients and staff, it found one of the most significant access barriers to be transportation problems, including some towns and communities simply not having a bus service to the hospital [ 3 ]. A quantitative study could have measured the number of patients over time or even looked at possible explanatory factors – but only those previously known or suspected to be of relevance. To discover reasons for observed patterns, especially the invisible or surprising ones, qualitative designs are needed.

While qualitative research is common in other fields, it is still relatively underrepresented in health services research. The latter field is more traditionally rooted in the evidence-based-medicine paradigm, as seen in " research that involves testing the effectiveness of various strategies to achieve changes in clinical practice, preferably applying randomised controlled trial study designs (...) " [ 4 ]. This focus on quantitative research and specifically randomised controlled trials (RCT) is visible in the idea of a hierarchy of research evidence which assumes that some research designs are objectively better than others, and that choosing a "lesser" design is only acceptable when the better ones are not practically or ethically feasible [ 5 , 6 ]. Others, however, argue that an objective hierarchy does not exist, and that, instead, the research design and methods should be chosen to fit the specific research question at hand – "questions before methods" [ 2 , 7 – 9 ]. This means that even when an RCT is possible, some research problems require a different design that is better suited to addressing them. Arguing in JAMA, Berwick uses the example of rapid response teams in hospitals, which he describes as " a complex, multicomponent intervention – essentially a process of social change" susceptible to a range of different context factors including leadership or organisation history. According to him, "[in] such complex terrain, the RCT is an impoverished way to learn. Critics who use it as a truth standard in this context are incorrect" [ 8 ] . Instead of limiting oneself to RCTs, Berwick recommends embracing a wider range of methods , including qualitative ones, which for "these specific applications, (...) are not compromises in learning how to improve; they are superior" [ 8 ].

Research problems that can be approached particularly well using qualitative methods include assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change), addressing questions beyond “what works”, towards “what works for whom when, how and why”, and focussing on intervention improvement rather than accreditation [ 7 , 9 – 12 ]. Using qualitative methods can also help shed light on the “softer” side of medical treatment. For example, while quantitative trials can measure the costs and benefits of neuro-oncological treatment in terms of survival rates or adverse effects, qualitative research can help provide a better understanding of patient or caregiver stress, visibility of illness or out-of-pocket expenses.

How to conduct qualitative research?

Given that qualitative research is characterised by flexibility, openness and responsivity to context, the steps of data collection and analysis are not as separate and consecutive as they tend to be in quantitative research [ 13 , 14 ]. As Fossey puts it : “sampling, data collection, analysis and interpretation are related to each other in a cyclical (iterative) manner, rather than following one after another in a stepwise approach” [ 15 ]. The researcher can make educated decisions with regard to the choice of method, how they are implemented, and to which and how many units they are applied [ 13 ]. As shown in Fig. 1 , this can involve several back-and-forth steps between data collection and analysis where new insights and experiences can lead to adaption and expansion of the original plan. Some insights may also necessitate a revision of the research question and/or the research design as a whole. The process ends when saturation is achieved, i.e. when no relevant new information can be found (see also below: sampling and saturation). For reasons of transparency, it is essential for all decisions as well as the underlying reasoning to be well-documented.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig1_HTML.jpg

Iterative research process

While it is not always explicitly addressed, qualitative methods reflect a different underlying research paradigm than quantitative research (e.g. constructivism or interpretivism as opposed to positivism). The choice of methods can be based on the respective underlying substantive theory or theoretical framework used by the researcher [ 2 ].

Data collection

The methods of qualitative data collection most commonly used in health research are document study, observations, semi-structured interviews and focus groups [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 17 ].

Document study

Document study (also called document analysis) refers to the review by the researcher of written materials [ 14 ]. These can include personal and non-personal documents such as archives, annual reports, guidelines, policy documents, diaries or letters.

Observations

Observations are particularly useful to gain insights into a certain setting and actual behaviour – as opposed to reported behaviour or opinions [ 13 ]. Qualitative observations can be either participant or non-participant in nature. In participant observations, the observer is part of the observed setting, for example a nurse working in an intensive care unit [ 18 ]. In non-participant observations, the observer is “on the outside looking in”, i.e. present in but not part of the situation, trying not to influence the setting by their presence. Observations can be planned (e.g. for 3 h during the day or night shift) or ad hoc (e.g. as soon as a stroke patient arrives at the emergency room). During the observation, the observer takes notes on everything or certain pre-determined parts of what is happening around them, for example focusing on physician-patient interactions or communication between different professional groups. Written notes can be taken during or after the observations, depending on feasibility (which is usually lower during participant observations) and acceptability (e.g. when the observer is perceived to be judging the observed). Afterwards, these field notes are transcribed into observation protocols. If more than one observer was involved, field notes are taken independently, but notes can be consolidated into one protocol after discussions. Advantages of conducting observations include minimising the distance between the researcher and the researched, the potential discovery of topics that the researcher did not realise were relevant and gaining deeper insights into the real-world dimensions of the research problem at hand [ 18 ].

Semi-structured interviews

Hijmans & Kuyper describe qualitative interviews as “an exchange with an informal character, a conversation with a goal” [ 19 ]. Interviews are used to gain insights into a person’s subjective experiences, opinions and motivations – as opposed to facts or behaviours [ 13 ]. Interviews can be distinguished by the degree to which they are structured (i.e. a questionnaire), open (e.g. free conversation or autobiographical interviews) or semi-structured [ 2 , 13 ]. Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined [ 19 ]. The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data collection, e.g. document study or observations. The topic list is usually adapted and improved at the start of the data collection process as the interviewer learns more about the field [ 20 ]. Across interviews the focus on the different (blocks of) questions may differ and some questions may be skipped altogether (e.g. if the interviewee is not able or willing to answer the questions or for concerns about the total length of the interview) [ 20 ]. Qualitative interviews are usually not conducted in written format as it impedes on the interactive component of the method [ 20 ]. In comparison to written surveys, qualitative interviews have the advantage of being interactive and allowing for unexpected topics to emerge and to be taken up by the researcher. This can also help overcome a provider or researcher-centred bias often found in written surveys, which by nature, can only measure what is already known or expected to be of relevance to the researcher. Interviews can be audio- or video-taped; but sometimes it is only feasible or acceptable for the interviewer to take written notes [ 14 , 16 , 20 ].

Focus groups

Focus groups are group interviews to explore participants’ expertise and experiences, including explorations of how and why people behave in certain ways [ 1 ]. Focus groups usually consist of 6–8 people and are led by an experienced moderator following a topic guide or “script” [ 21 ]. They can involve an observer who takes note of the non-verbal aspects of the situation, possibly using an observation guide [ 21 ]. Depending on researchers’ and participants’ preferences, the discussions can be audio- or video-taped and transcribed afterwards [ 21 ]. Focus groups are useful for bringing together homogeneous (to a lesser extent heterogeneous) groups of participants with relevant expertise and experience on a given topic on which they can share detailed information [ 21 ]. Focus groups are a relatively easy, fast and inexpensive method to gain access to information on interactions in a given group, i.e. “the sharing and comparing” among participants [ 21 ]. Disadvantages include less control over the process and a lesser extent to which each individual may participate. Moreover, focus group moderators need experience, as do those tasked with the analysis of the resulting data. Focus groups can be less appropriate for discussing sensitive topics that participants might be reluctant to disclose in a group setting [ 13 ]. Moreover, attention must be paid to the emergence of “groupthink” as well as possible power dynamics within the group, e.g. when patients are awed or intimidated by health professionals.

Choosing the “right” method

As explained above, the school of thought underlying qualitative research assumes no objective hierarchy of evidence and methods. This means that each choice of single or combined methods has to be based on the research question that needs to be answered and a critical assessment with regard to whether or to what extent the chosen method can accomplish this – i.e. the “fit” between question and method [ 14 ]. It is necessary for these decisions to be documented when they are being made, and to be critically discussed when reporting methods and results.

Let us assume that our research aim is to examine the (clinical) processes around acute endovascular treatment (EVT), from the patient’s arrival at the emergency room to recanalization, with the aim to identify possible causes for delay and/or other causes for sub-optimal treatment outcome. As a first step, we could conduct a document study of the relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs) for this phase of care – are they up-to-date and in line with current guidelines? Do they contain any mistakes, irregularities or uncertainties that could cause delays or other problems? Regardless of the answers to these questions, the results have to be interpreted based on what they are: a written outline of what care processes in this hospital should look like. If we want to know what they actually look like in practice, we can conduct observations of the processes described in the SOPs. These results can (and should) be analysed in themselves, but also in comparison to the results of the document analysis, especially as regards relevant discrepancies. Do the SOPs outline specific tests for which no equipment can be observed or tasks to be performed by specialized nurses who are not present during the observation? It might also be possible that the written SOP is outdated, but the actual care provided is in line with current best practice. In order to find out why these discrepancies exist, it can be useful to conduct interviews. Are the physicians simply not aware of the SOPs (because their existence is limited to the hospital’s intranet) or do they actively disagree with them or does the infrastructure make it impossible to provide the care as described? Another rationale for adding interviews is that some situations (or all of their possible variations for different patient groups or the day, night or weekend shift) cannot practically or ethically be observed. In this case, it is possible to ask those involved to report on their actions – being aware that this is not the same as the actual observation. A senior physician’s or hospital manager’s description of certain situations might differ from a nurse’s or junior physician’s one, maybe because they intentionally misrepresent facts or maybe because different aspects of the process are visible or important to them. In some cases, it can also be relevant to consider to whom the interviewee is disclosing this information – someone they trust, someone they are otherwise not connected to, or someone they suspect or are aware of being in a potentially “dangerous” power relationship to them. Lastly, a focus group could be conducted with representatives of the relevant professional groups to explore how and why exactly they provide care around EVT. The discussion might reveal discrepancies (between SOPs and actual care or between different physicians) and motivations to the researchers as well as to the focus group members that they might not have been aware of themselves. For the focus group to deliver relevant information, attention has to be paid to its composition and conduct, for example, to make sure that all participants feel safe to disclose sensitive or potentially problematic information or that the discussion is not dominated by (senior) physicians only. The resulting combination of data collection methods is shown in Fig. 2 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig2_HTML.jpg

Possible combination of data collection methods

Attributions for icons: “Book” by Serhii Smirnov, “Interview” by Adrien Coquet, FR, “Magnifying Glass” by anggun, ID, “Business communication” by Vectors Market; all from the Noun Project

The combination of multiple data source as described for this example can be referred to as “triangulation”, in which multiple measurements are carried out from different angles to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under study [ 22 , 23 ].

Data analysis

To analyse the data collected through observations, interviews and focus groups these need to be transcribed into protocols and transcripts (see Fig. 3 ). Interviews and focus groups can be transcribed verbatim , with or without annotations for behaviour (e.g. laughing, crying, pausing) and with or without phonetic transcription of dialects and filler words, depending on what is expected or known to be relevant for the analysis. In the next step, the protocols and transcripts are coded , that is, marked (or tagged, labelled) with one or more short descriptors of the content of a sentence or paragraph [ 2 , 15 , 23 ]. Jansen describes coding as “connecting the raw data with “theoretical” terms” [ 20 ]. In a more practical sense, coding makes raw data sortable. This makes it possible to extract and examine all segments describing, say, a tele-neurology consultation from multiple data sources (e.g. SOPs, emergency room observations, staff and patient interview). In a process of synthesis and abstraction, the codes are then grouped, summarised and/or categorised [ 15 , 20 ]. The end product of the coding or analysis process is a descriptive theory of the behavioural pattern under investigation [ 20 ]. The coding process is performed using qualitative data management software, the most common ones being InVivo, MaxQDA and Atlas.ti. It should be noted that these are data management tools which support the analysis performed by the researcher(s) [ 14 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig3_HTML.jpg

From data collection to data analysis

Attributions for icons: see Fig. Fig.2, 2 , also “Speech to text” by Trevor Dsouza, “Field Notes” by Mike O’Brien, US, “Voice Record” by ProSymbols, US, “Inspection” by Made, AU, and “Cloud” by Graphic Tigers; all from the Noun Project

How to report qualitative research?

Protocols of qualitative research can be published separately and in advance of the study results. However, the aim is not the same as in RCT protocols, i.e. to pre-define and set in stone the research questions and primary or secondary endpoints. Rather, it is a way to describe the research methods in detail, which might not be possible in the results paper given journals’ word limits. Qualitative research papers are usually longer than their quantitative counterparts to allow for deep understanding and so-called “thick description”. In the methods section, the focus is on transparency of the methods used, including why, how and by whom they were implemented in the specific study setting, so as to enable a discussion of whether and how this may have influenced data collection, analysis and interpretation. The results section usually starts with a paragraph outlining the main findings, followed by more detailed descriptions of, for example, the commonalities, discrepancies or exceptions per category [ 20 ]. Here it is important to support main findings by relevant quotations, which may add information, context, emphasis or real-life examples [ 20 , 23 ]. It is subject to debate in the field whether it is relevant to state the exact number or percentage of respondents supporting a certain statement (e.g. “Five interviewees expressed negative feelings towards XYZ”) [ 21 ].

How to combine qualitative with quantitative research?

Qualitative methods can be combined with other methods in multi- or mixed methods designs, which “[employ] two or more different methods [ …] within the same study or research program rather than confining the research to one single method” [ 24 ]. Reasons for combining methods can be diverse, including triangulation for corroboration of findings, complementarity for illustration and clarification of results, expansion to extend the breadth and range of the study, explanation of (unexpected) results generated with one method with the help of another, or offsetting the weakness of one method with the strength of another [ 1 , 17 , 24 – 26 ]. The resulting designs can be classified according to when, why and how the different quantitative and/or qualitative data strands are combined. The three most common types of mixed method designs are the convergent parallel design , the explanatory sequential design and the exploratory sequential design. The designs with examples are shown in Fig. 4 .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is 42466_2020_59_Fig4_HTML.jpg

Three common mixed methods designs

In the convergent parallel design, a qualitative study is conducted in parallel to and independently of a quantitative study, and the results of both studies are compared and combined at the stage of interpretation of results. Using the above example of EVT provision, this could entail setting up a quantitative EVT registry to measure process times and patient outcomes in parallel to conducting the qualitative research outlined above, and then comparing results. Amongst other things, this would make it possible to assess whether interview respondents’ subjective impressions of patients receiving good care match modified Rankin Scores at follow-up, or whether observed delays in care provision are exceptions or the rule when compared to door-to-needle times as documented in the registry. In the explanatory sequential design, a quantitative study is carried out first, followed by a qualitative study to help explain the results from the quantitative study. This would be an appropriate design if the registry alone had revealed relevant delays in door-to-needle times and the qualitative study would be used to understand where and why these occurred, and how they could be improved. In the exploratory design, the qualitative study is carried out first and its results help informing and building the quantitative study in the next step [ 26 ]. If the qualitative study around EVT provision had shown a high level of dissatisfaction among the staff members involved, a quantitative questionnaire investigating staff satisfaction could be set up in the next step, informed by the qualitative study on which topics dissatisfaction had been expressed. Amongst other things, the questionnaire design would make it possible to widen the reach of the research to more respondents from different (types of) hospitals, regions, countries or settings, and to conduct sub-group analyses for different professional groups.

How to assess qualitative research?

A variety of assessment criteria and lists have been developed for qualitative research, ranging in their focus and comprehensiveness [ 14 , 17 , 27 ]. However, none of these has been elevated to the “gold standard” in the field. In the following, we therefore focus on a set of commonly used assessment criteria that, from a practical standpoint, a researcher can look for when assessing a qualitative research report or paper.

Assessors should check the authors’ use of and adherence to the relevant reporting checklists (e.g. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)) to make sure all items that are relevant for this type of research are addressed [ 23 , 28 ]. Discussions of quantitative measures in addition to or instead of these qualitative measures can be a sign of lower quality of the research (paper). Providing and adhering to a checklist for qualitative research contributes to an important quality criterion for qualitative research, namely transparency [ 15 , 17 , 23 ].

Reflexivity

While methodological transparency and complete reporting is relevant for all types of research, some additional criteria must be taken into account for qualitative research. This includes what is called reflexivity, i.e. sensitivity to the relationship between the researcher and the researched, including how contact was established and maintained, or the background and experience of the researcher(s) involved in data collection and analysis. Depending on the research question and population to be researched this can be limited to professional experience, but it may also include gender, age or ethnicity [ 17 , 27 ]. These details are relevant because in qualitative research, as opposed to quantitative research, the researcher as a person cannot be isolated from the research process [ 23 ]. It may influence the conversation when an interviewed patient speaks to an interviewer who is a physician, or when an interviewee is asked to discuss a gynaecological procedure with a male interviewer, and therefore the reader must be made aware of these details [ 19 ].

Sampling and saturation

The aim of qualitative sampling is for all variants of the objects of observation that are deemed relevant for the study to be present in the sample “ to see the issue and its meanings from as many angles as possible” [ 1 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 27 ] , and to ensure “information-richness [ 15 ]. An iterative sampling approach is advised, in which data collection (e.g. five interviews) is followed by data analysis, followed by more data collection to find variants that are lacking in the current sample. This process continues until no new (relevant) information can be found and further sampling becomes redundant – which is called saturation [ 1 , 15 ] . In other words: qualitative data collection finds its end point not a priori , but when the research team determines that saturation has been reached [ 29 , 30 ].

This is also the reason why most qualitative studies use deliberate instead of random sampling strategies. This is generally referred to as “ purposive sampling” , in which researchers pre-define which types of participants or cases they need to include so as to cover all variations that are expected to be of relevance, based on the literature, previous experience or theory (i.e. theoretical sampling) [ 14 , 20 ]. Other types of purposive sampling include (but are not limited to) maximum variation sampling, critical case sampling or extreme or deviant case sampling [ 2 ]. In the above EVT example, a purposive sample could include all relevant professional groups and/or all relevant stakeholders (patients, relatives) and/or all relevant times of observation (day, night and weekend shift).

Assessors of qualitative research should check whether the considerations underlying the sampling strategy were sound and whether or how researchers tried to adapt and improve their strategies in stepwise or cyclical approaches between data collection and analysis to achieve saturation [ 14 ].

Good qualitative research is iterative in nature, i.e. it goes back and forth between data collection and analysis, revising and improving the approach where necessary. One example of this are pilot interviews, where different aspects of the interview (especially the interview guide, but also, for example, the site of the interview or whether the interview can be audio-recorded) are tested with a small number of respondents, evaluated and revised [ 19 ]. In doing so, the interviewer learns which wording or types of questions work best, or which is the best length of an interview with patients who have trouble concentrating for an extended time. Of course, the same reasoning applies to observations or focus groups which can also be piloted.

Ideally, coding should be performed by at least two researchers, especially at the beginning of the coding process when a common approach must be defined, including the establishment of a useful coding list (or tree), and when a common meaning of individual codes must be established [ 23 ]. An initial sub-set or all transcripts can be coded independently by the coders and then compared and consolidated after regular discussions in the research team. This is to make sure that codes are applied consistently to the research data.

Member checking

Member checking, also called respondent validation , refers to the practice of checking back with study respondents to see if the research is in line with their views [ 14 , 27 ]. This can happen after data collection or analysis or when first results are available [ 23 ]. For example, interviewees can be provided with (summaries of) their transcripts and asked whether they believe this to be a complete representation of their views or whether they would like to clarify or elaborate on their responses [ 17 ]. Respondents’ feedback on these issues then becomes part of the data collection and analysis [ 27 ].

Stakeholder involvement

In those niches where qualitative approaches have been able to evolve and grow, a new trend has seen the inclusion of patients and their representatives not only as study participants (i.e. “members”, see above) but as consultants to and active participants in the broader research process [ 31 – 33 ]. The underlying assumption is that patients and other stakeholders hold unique perspectives and experiences that add value beyond their own single story, making the research more relevant and beneficial to researchers, study participants and (future) patients alike [ 34 , 35 ]. Using the example of patients on or nearing dialysis, a recent scoping review found that 80% of clinical research did not address the top 10 research priorities identified by patients and caregivers [ 32 , 36 ]. In this sense, the involvement of the relevant stakeholders, especially patients and relatives, is increasingly being seen as a quality indicator in and of itself.

How not to assess qualitative research

The above overview does not include certain items that are routine in assessments of quantitative research. What follows is a non-exhaustive, non-representative, experience-based list of the quantitative criteria often applied to the assessment of qualitative research, as well as an explanation of the limited usefulness of these endeavours.

Protocol adherence

Given the openness and flexibility of qualitative research, it should not be assessed by how well it adheres to pre-determined and fixed strategies – in other words: its rigidity. Instead, the assessor should look for signs of adaptation and refinement based on lessons learned from earlier steps in the research process.

Sample size

For the reasons explained above, qualitative research does not require specific sample sizes, nor does it require that the sample size be determined a priori [ 1 , 14 , 27 , 37 – 39 ]. Sample size can only be a useful quality indicator when related to the research purpose, the chosen methodology and the composition of the sample, i.e. who was included and why.

Randomisation

While some authors argue that randomisation can be used in qualitative research, this is not commonly the case, as neither its feasibility nor its necessity or usefulness has been convincingly established for qualitative research [ 13 , 27 ]. Relevant disadvantages include the negative impact of a too large sample size as well as the possibility (or probability) of selecting “ quiet, uncooperative or inarticulate individuals ” [ 17 ]. Qualitative studies do not use control groups, either.

Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks”

The concept of “interrater reliability” is sometimes used in qualitative research to assess to which extent the coding approach overlaps between the two co-coders. However, it is not clear what this measure tells us about the quality of the analysis [ 23 ]. This means that these scores can be included in qualitative research reports, preferably with some additional information on what the score means for the analysis, but it is not a requirement. Relatedly, it is not relevant for the quality or “objectivity” of qualitative research to separate those who recruited the study participants and collected and analysed the data. Experiences even show that it might be better to have the same person or team perform all of these tasks [ 20 ]. First, when researchers introduce themselves during recruitment this can enhance trust when the interview takes place days or weeks later with the same researcher. Second, when the audio-recording is transcribed for analysis, the researcher conducting the interviews will usually remember the interviewee and the specific interview situation during data analysis. This might be helpful in providing additional context information for interpretation of data, e.g. on whether something might have been meant as a joke [ 18 ].

Not being quantitative research

Being qualitative research instead of quantitative research should not be used as an assessment criterion if it is used irrespectively of the research problem at hand. Similarly, qualitative research should not be required to be combined with quantitative research per se – unless mixed methods research is judged as inherently better than single-method research. In this case, the same criterion should be applied for quantitative studies without a qualitative component.

The main take-away points of this paper are summarised in Table Table1. 1 . We aimed to show that, if conducted well, qualitative research can answer specific research questions that cannot to be adequately answered using (only) quantitative designs. Seeing qualitative and quantitative methods as equal will help us become more aware and critical of the “fit” between the research problem and our chosen methods: I can conduct an RCT to determine the reasons for transportation delays of acute stroke patients – but should I? It also provides us with a greater range of tools to tackle a greater range of research problems more appropriately and successfully, filling in the blind spots on one half of the methodological spectrum to better address the whole complexity of neurological research and practice.

Take-away-points


• Assessing complex multi-component interventions or systems (of change) • What works for whom when, how and why? • Focussing on intervention improvement	• Document study • Observations (participant or non-participant) • Interviews (especially semi-structured) • Focus groups	• Transcription of audio-recordings and field notes into transcripts and protocols • Coding of protocols • Using qualitative data management software

• Combinations of quantitative and/or qualitative methods, e.g.: • : quali and quanti in parallel • : quanti followed by quali • : quali followed by quanti	• Checklists • Reflexivity • Sampling strategies • Piloting • Co-coding • Member checking • Stakeholder involvement	• Protocol adherence • Sample size • Randomization • Interrater reliability, variability and other “objectivity checks” • Not being quantitative research

Acknowledgements

Abbreviations.

EVT	Endovascular treatment
RCT	Randomised Controlled Trial
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
SRQR	Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

Authors’ contributions

LB drafted the manuscript; WW and CG revised the manuscript; all authors approved the final versions.

no external funding.

Availability of data and materials

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

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

Tools and Resources
Customer Services
Corrections
Crime, Media, and Popular Culture
Criminal Behavior
Criminological Theory
Critical Criminology
Geography of Crime
International Crime
Juvenile Justice
Prevention/Public Policy
Race, Ethnicity, and Crime
Research Methods
Victimology/Criminal Victimization
White Collar Crime
Women, Crime, and Justice
Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Qualitative interviewing.

John J. Brent , John J. Brent School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University
Peter B. Kraska Peter B. Kraska School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University
and Justin Hutchens Justin Hutchens School of Justice Studies, Eastern Kentucky University
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.850
Published online: 21 August 2024

Given the multifaceted and interdisciplinary nature of studying crime and criminal justice, the pursuit of credible, reliable, and rigorous knowledge requires a well-developed methodological infrastructure. To explore and examine these areas, there are times when research needs to document probabilities, examine rates, identify correlations, and test theoretical propositions. There are also times when research needs to explore the more qualitative elements, namely the perspectives, interpretations, lived experiences, and constructed realities. Among the more prominent qualitative methods within the field’s methodological toolbox are interviews. Aiding other approaches, qualitative interviews contribute to the field’s methodological means by first offering a more inductive and interpretive framework to study crime-related phenomena. From these foundations, they are replete with avenues through which to conceptualize, construct, and administer research efforts. They also provide a host of unique and beneficial methodological means to collect, code, and analyze collected data. When their overall impact is examined, the continued use and development of qualitative methods—more specifically, interviews—can progress the field’s body of knowledge while contributing to more informed practices and policies. Given their use and utility, interviews have become some of the most used methodological approaches within the social sciences.

qualitative
interviewing
ethnographic
research methods
criminal justice
criminology

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 06 September 2024

Cookie Policy
Privacy Policy
Legal Notice
Accessibility
[185.80.151.9]
185.80.151.9

Character limit 500 /500

This page is not available

We apologize, but we can't find that file or page. You can try searching the APA website or one of the following links:

APA Directorates and Programs

APA Publications and Databases

Psychology Topics

If you can't find what you're looking for, you can visit Customer Support or Contact APA .

Advanced search

Advanced Search

Unpacking complexity in addressing the contribution of trauma to women’s ill health: a qualitative study of perspectives from general practice

Find this author on Google Scholar
Find this author on PubMed
Search for this author on this site
ORCID record for Jennifer MacLellan
ORCID record for Sharon Dixon
ORCID record for Francine Toye
ORCID record for Abigail McNiven
Figures & Data

Background There is an intricate relationship between the mind and the body in experiences of health and wellbeing. This can result in complexity of both symptom presentation and experience. Although the contribution of life trauma to illness experience is well described, this is not always fully recognised or addressed in healthcare encounters. Negotiating effective and acceptable trauma-informed conversations can be difficult for clinicians and patients.

Aim To explore the experience of primary care practitioners caring for women through a trauma-informed care lens.

Design and setting Qualitative study in the general practice setting of England, with reflections from representatives of a group with lived experience of trauma.

Method This was a secondary thematic analysis of 46 qualitative interviews conducted online/by telephone to explore primary care practitioners’ experiences of supporting women’s health needs in general practice, alongside consultation with representatives of a lived-experience group to contextualise the findings.

Results Four themes were constructed: ‘you prioritise physical symptoms because you don’t want to miss something’; you do not want to alienate people by saying the wrong thing; the system needs to support trauma-informed care; and delivering trauma-informed care takes work that can have an impact on practitioners.

Conclusion Primary care practitioners are aware of the difficulties in discussing the interface between trauma and illness with patients, and request support and guidance in how to negotiate this supportively. Lack of support for practitioners moves the focus of trauma-informed care from a whole-systems approach towards individual clinician–patient interactions.

biopsychosocial models
communication
general practice
trauma-informed care
Introduction

As evident in the Women’s Health Strategy for England 1 and its underlying public consultation, 2 women’s health is complex and embedded in historical dismissal and stigma. There is an intricate relationship between the mind and the body in experiences of health and wellbeing. One facet of this complexity includes the possible contribution of trauma to the woman’s illness experience. The physical response to, and pathways of bodily damage as a result of, the hormonal environment of chronic stress has revealed links between unresolved emotional distress and autoimmune conditions. 3 Trauma has an impact on people in different ways. Although some people make positive adjustments, others experience mental ill health and/or develop physical symptoms from emotional distress. 4 This can result in complexity both in symptom presentation and health experience.

Trauma can result from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as harmful or life threatening and can include past experiences of care (including in maternity), adverse childhood events (ACEs), and other life experiences as an adult. ACEs are stressful or traumatic events that occur specifically during childhood or adolescence 5 and can include: abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual); neglect; living in a household with domestic violence, experience of illness, or bereavement. 6 In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 96 studies of adult health behaviours, the risk of poorer health outcomes (including cardiovascular disease, respiratory disorders, gastrointestinal disorders, and mental ill health) increased with the number of ACEs. 4 Experiences of trauma at any stage in life can cause lasting adverse effects on health. 3 In the UK, women are disproportionally affected by violence (twice as likely as men to experience domestic violence), 7 , 8 trauma, 9 , 10 and ill health, 11 , 12 highlighting the potential complexity of women’s health presentation.

Although the contribution of life trauma to illness experience is well described, primary care professionals do not always fully address it. Potential reasons include clinician concerns about missing a serious illness in a complex presentation or about alienating or upsetting the patient. 11 Addressing trauma often necessitates introducing conversations about the link between mind and body, which can be difficult to navigate. Significant challenges and uncertainties reside in how best to manage the link between mind and body in communication with patients and in healthcare pathways. Qualitative research indicates that primary care professionals can find it challenging to navigate this mind–body presentation. Suggestions from primary care professionals that physical symptoms are amplified by (or a manifestation of) distress can be experienced as dismissal and invalidation by patients. 13 – 15 Attempts to bridge these health needs are therefore not always experienced as supportive. This illustrates the potential challenges of negotiating trauma-informed conversations in ways that are experienced as acceptable and supportive by patients.

Significant challenges and uncertainties reside in how best to manage the link between mind and body in communication with patients and in healthcare pathways. Lack of supportive resources to deliver holistic, trauma-informed care risks practitioners (inadvertently) avoiding discussion of the contribution of distress in the illness presentation. A trauma-informed systems-level approach would support integration of psychological support within multiple care pathways and support wellbeing of practitioners providing care.

How this fits in

Trauma-informed care is a framework founded on five core practices: safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration, and empowerment. These can be used to address the impact of trauma on patients and healthcare professionals and prevent re-traumatisation in healthcare services. 16 However, definitions, guidance, practitioner training, delivery, and support for trauma-informed approaches vary between healthcare settings according to local-level funding priorities with implementation described as disjointed. 16 Little is known about how healthcare professionals experience trying to effectively deliver trauma-informed care. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of primary care practitioners caring for women through a trauma-informed care lens.

This study was a secondary analysis of qualitative interview data gathered to explore primary care practitioners’ experiences of supporting women’s health needs in primary care. Between March and September 2022, we interviewed a sample of 46 primary care practitioners across England (GPs n = 31, nurses n = 9, other professionals n = 6, with an average of 12 years’ experience [1 to 30 years], 41/46 female), ensuring representation from practices working in areas of deprivation where health inequalities and multimorbidity are significant challenges. Detailed methods and participant characteristics of the parent study are reported elsewhere. 17

The original topic guide was developed by three authors in response to a perceived gap in knowledge about women’s health care in primary care and commissioned by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme. Data were collected through single-episode, one-to-one interviews with fully informed consent. They were conducted virtually online or by telephone by two experienced qualitative researchers and audio-recorded. These were transcribed verbatim, checked against the original recording, and thematically analysed.

The team then undertook a focused enquiry using secondary thematic analysis of the dataset to explore primary care professionals’ navigation of women’s experiences of distress as a contribution to their symptoms. 18 We recoded the transcripts line-by-line where distress, emotional, or psychological impact or contribution to health experience was mentioned. We discussed the constructed data categories within the research team to create interpretive themes. We reflected on these themes with representatives of three charities supporting women with significant experience of historical and contemporary trauma to add a lived-experience perspective to the data.

Four themes were constructed from the data:

‘you prioritise physical symptoms because you don’t want to miss something’;

you do not want to alienate people by saying the wrong thing;

the system needs to support trauma-informed care; and

delivering trauma-informed care takes work that can have an impact on practitioners.

Theme 1: ‘you prioritise physical symptoms because you don’t want to miss something’ (PC30, female [F], GP for 5 years)

Practitioners described women’s health consultations as often complex and difficult to manage in a single, constrained time slot. A significant concern was the fear of missing a physical condition requiring specific or prompt treatment as many women’s health complaints could present with similar but vague symptomatology and could suggest multiple possible diagnoses. Some participants reflected that a challenge of navigating diagnostic processes, by first excluding potential causes that need specific interventions such as cancer, meant the contribution of distress to physical symptoms was pushed down the list of considerations: ‘It’s definitely sort of a symptom sieve to start with, and to adequately hear your patient and really hear them and really listen to what they’re saying […] There are many things that are difficult to do in ten minutes, but I … women’s health is particularly difficult.’ (PC17, F, advanced nurse practitioner [ANP] for more than 15 years) ‘They’re often quite vague symptoms: bloating, things like that, so you either have a very low index of suspicion and you’re seeing ca-125s [blood test that may indicate ovarian cancer] and you’re scanning everybody, or things get missed, and [sighs] yeah, it can be very challenging and obviously if you miss something like that it’s devastating for everybody involved, but it’s very difficult.’ (PC12, F, GP for more than 15 years)

Participants described how investigation pathways move through a hierarchy of potential causes and may involve a stepped process that did not always yield a confirmatory or unifying diagnosis. This meant that the participants had to manage patients’ expectations of diagnosis throughout this process.

Theme 2: you do not want to alienate people by saying the wrong thing

Some felt that a cultural shift was needed for the wider healthcare system to acknowledge the mind–body interplay as a legitimate expression of distress, to support practitioners to discuss this with their patients along their care pathway, and to provide timely access to psychological support services: ‘Perhaps some of training for staff would be about how you talk about the connection between your brain and your body […] without sounding dismissive and actually, training individuals to become more sensitive to these types of, conversations.’ (PC46, male [M], GP for 15 years)

However, some felt that patients were not always receptive to recognising the contribution of emotions or past experiences to physical symptoms, the idea of an integral link between mind and body, or the offer of psychological support to cope with the distress of physical symptoms. Some participants were worried about alienating women who might interpret this suggestion as devaluing or de-legitimising their symptom experience, and were therefore sometimes unsure when or how to navigate this: ‘I don’t think many patients like it when we end up going down that route when it comes to pain, any pain, not just pelvic pain in itself, because they want a diagnosis of some form or another, whatever it’s called, rather than being given some antidepressants or some counselling.’ (PC18, F, GP for 10 years)

Participants described the essential first step to be validation of the woman’s experience, emphasising understanding and genuine belief in the symptoms as ‘real’ (although perhaps currently unexplained) before exploring the impact of trauma or life stress in its aetiology: ‘It’s just spending the time with them and actually acknowledging, yes the pain is real, but are we not just saying you know, “you’ve got pain and we can’t find any cause for it”, “the pain is actually real”, and what we can do is maybe go down the route of psychological sort of therapy for that, that might be the best route of managing it.’ (PC18, F, GP for 10 years) ‘The first lady I was talking about absolutely wasn’t having any of it […] I got her some interesting resources […] and I just mis-pitched it […] the fact that this is her body feeling overwhelmed and feeling overwhelmed with the difficulties in her life and how to explain that in a way that seems scientific … it’s quite difficult, isn’t it?’ (PC14, F, GP for 1 year)

Healthcare professionals were aware and worried that exploring the contribution of trauma or distress in the physical symptom experience and that physical and emotional symptoms can coexist was not always well received. Restricted time in consultations highlighted the need for resources that could support this mind–body understanding in a positive and affirming way for the patient: ‘Often there is something organic, or something organic that has started it off, but then it often becomes this kind of complex combination of physical and then also psychological symptoms together, and I think kind of having resources to explain how psychological symptoms can impact pelvic pain […] I think kind of having good resources to try and back up what I’m saying would be quite helpful.’ (PC21, F, GP for more than 20 years)

Participants described how the net effect of these considerations could result in practitioners (inadvertently) avoiding discussion of the contribution of distress in the illness presentation: ‘ […] I think you can shut it down easily and not get emotionally involved, but you do not actually solve any of the issues unless they are straight up, simple, physical problems that you can just treat, but for the most part it doesn’t work very well.’ (PC30, F, GP for 5 years)

Participants recognised the importance of a trauma-informed approach in the complex and holistic care needs of women’s health. This extended to considerations about trauma-informed approaches to physical examination and how this could be enabled. Some highlighted the unique position of the primary care practitioner, in a potentially protracted diagnostic or support pathway, to communicate the contribution of distress in a supportive and helpful way to their patients.

Theme 3: the system needs to support trauma-informed care

Participants described four systemic challenges to the provision of trauma-informed care:

inadequate time allocated for appointments;

waiting times for specialist practitioner review in secondary care;

limited access to services; and

providing care for women returning from secondary care without a unifying diagnosis.

The challenges of time were frequently reported by participants: ‘I already know that I can’t do everything for you [the patient] in ten minutes, which isn’t always like a nice feeling for me, because we want to be able to help and you know do that within the time … who knows when they’ll be able to get an appointment again or you don’t want it to be frustrating for them, but equally you don’t want to rush yourself.’ (PC35, F, GP for less than 6 months) ‘They come back two months later and say, “I’ve still … I’m still … still haven’t seen the hospital”, and that there’s a certain amount of workload in primary care just because of … just because secondary care can’t take that on.’ (PC23, M, GP for more than 20 years)

In some areas they reported limited access to services such as counselling or psychological support services and community gynaecology because of local funding models and the challenges of providing care for women returning from secondary care without a unifying diagnosis. This often led to practitioners ‘holding the distress’ of the woman (see theme 4). Despite the challenges identified, participants described how they worked within the system constraints to offer the best service for their patients, for example, planning activities across multiple appointments: ‘In fifteen minutes it’s quite challenging, or if I’m trying to examine somebody […] that’s difficult, that’s when I sometimes ask them […] to come back for the examination so that I can do all the other things that are needed.’ (PC25, F, GP for 25 years)

Participants spoke of the structural supports that were in place that worked well in their efforts to deliver trauma-informed care, such as support networks, the ‘advice and guidance’ contact service to access secondary care (a system where GPs can access specialist advice before or instead of referral), and working with social prescribers (link workers who help patients to access non-medical support services in their community): ‘I mean advice and guidance [are] probably helpful I think, you write and you say, “What do I do?” and they tell you, and you then say to the patient, “this is what the specialist has said”, and that’s great, and that’s a really good idea.’ (PC23, M, GP for more than 20 years) ‘[Access to a social prescriber] is definitely making a difference; I don’t know what we did before to be quite honest. I don’t know what we would do because it’s just improved the quality of life for our patients, and it’s just helped us cope because you know we often see mental health problems, social problems, and with such a limited time constraint, limited resources, now that investment has been put in, it is definitely making a difference.’ (PC16, F, ANP for more than 18 years)

Theme 4: delivering trauma-informed care takes work and can have an impact on practitioners

Taking a trauma-informed approach relied heavily on the practitioner–patient relationship and some felt that the impact on practitioners was not always accounted for. The work involved in taking a trauma-informed approach to care had an impact on clinician workload. When they were able to navigate this challenge participants reported job satisfaction that was a positive impact. Conversely, when participants were unable to deliver the care they aspired to and believed they should, this had a negative impact. Protracted routes to diagnosis (or not getting a diagnosis), exacerbated by long waits to access specialist review in secondary care, left participants ‘holding the distress’ of women managing symptoms while they waited for a management plan: ‘I mean typically what happens is when a referral is done, the patient is waiting three, four, five months to be seen sometimes, but the patient’s still got those symptoms, so what do they do?’ (PC18, F, GP for 10 years) ‘So pain is complex. I think every pain service in the country is poorly funded and poorly accessible […] The challenge we have is these patients are constantly accessing us and, you know, I don’t want to label anything but they do end up becoming frequent attenders, which you know … and all we are is becoming a holding person in all of this.’ (PC46, M, GP for 15 years)

This increased the pressure on primary care practitioners who were operating without adequate system support. Although participants knew that managing uncertainty was integral to the role of the primary care practitioner, holding distress added to the challenge of appropriately broaching or exploring the mind–body link. Participants described feeling overwhelmed and personally affected by managing the expectations of patients held in limbo and holding their distress: ‘Women who have complex, like intractable symptoms that have been investigated and no one’s really come up with anything […] it’s more psycho-social input that’s needed, and they’ve seen a gynaecologist and they’re still struggling and there’s not really a solution, and so they’re … they’re the ones who you think, “oh my gosh, I … I’m … I’m not sure what I can offer … offer you”.’ (PC34, F, GP for 15 years) ‘I mean women’s health is a prime one, it causes so much anxiety, stress, impact on the family, and I think with the complexities around the referral pathways and who’s doing what, which has been one of my biggest stresses, people can fall through the gaps very easily.’ (PC26, F, GP for 5 years)

Participants sought support from colleagues within their daily work routines to reflect on clinical questions or patients with complex cases. However, some felt that there were limited support services for practitioners’ mental wellbeing in a more formalised and structured way: ‘We have our annual appraisal but that is very much to make sure that we’re not total lunatics […] but other than that […] they do support us, but they … you know it’s once a year, there’s no capacity to debrief on individual challenging cases or anything like that, it’s very much to check-in that we are sort of on the rails.’ (PC30, F, GP for 5 years)

Participants described how not being able to deliver high-quality, holistic care because of structural constraints was unsatisfying and challenging: ‘I was so unhappy in my previous job really, I’d say we still had support, but the patients were a lot more demanding and it just comes with that, you know a lot more child protection issues safeguarding and it … you know, it’s just a really challenging job and that, and not necessary work satisfying either.’ (PC04, F, GP for 3 years)

Lack of personal and systems support for practitioners moves the focus of trauma-informed care from a whole-systems approach to the clinician–patient interaction.

Our findings indicate that clinicians are aware of the contribution of trauma and distress to the presentation of physical symptomatology within women’s health consultations but that conversations about this could be difficult. Some participants felt confident and willing to discuss the role of distress in symptom presentation; others felt that these conversations were difficult and sometimes avoided the topic. Constraints such as limited time in consultations and the training and resources to facilitate discussions about the minded-body (the interconnection of physical and emotional health) and the role of trauma and distress could mean that clinicians did not always talk to patients about the impact of distress. This was exacerbated by system constraints such as limited support services for referral. Practitioners described building support mechanisms for themselves at work through debrief and clinical conversations with colleagues but told us that there were no formal supervision or support services routinely available for practitioners. The heavy work and emotional labour within an unsupportive system was described as contributing to practitioner frustration and burnout. Although patient relationships were framed within a trauma-informed lens, the organisational configuration was not always supportive to a trauma-informed approach.

Strengths and limitations

The use of secondary analysis has allowed us to conduct a focused analysis on a rich dataset of primary care professionals’ interviews. As this was done within the project timeline by the original research team, potential ethical concerns about the impact of the sociopolitical context that often accompanies secondary analysis were mitigated. 18 We were able to minimise participant burden and engage with a targeted group of women for whom trauma-informed care and its delivery has an immediate impact.

The principal limitation of our study is the restrictions offered by the original interview scope and guiding questions of the parent study that focused on women’s health. We are unable to report on experience in other areas of health care or by gender of care provider as this is unexplored. Gender was recorded; there were four male and 42 female responders. We purposively selected practitioners with an interest in women’s health rather than sampling an equally gender-split sample to derive patterns of experience that could be attributed to gender issues.

Comparison with existing literature

The link between trauma and ill health is well discussed in the literature, as are the principles of trauma-informed care. However, there appears to be little evidence of the clinician’s experience in discussing the interface between trauma and complexity with patients. The complexity of women’s health experiences challenges a dualistic approach to care and could respond better to the continuity model of primary care. 19 Practitioners in our data actively enacted the principles of trauma-informed care (such as safety, trustworthiness, and collaboration) in their personal practice with women. 16 However, the structural configuration of primary care services could complicate these care aspirations including when resources were limited or services were not flexible enough to support practitioner autonomy, which could hinder opportunities for timely care or follow-up. This could erode the practitioner’s efforts to deliver trauma-informed care, with potential consequences for both patients and clinicians. Such structural constraints in a climate of overwork are powerful sources of moral distress and burnout in studies of nurses, midwives, and doctors. 20 – 23 The risk of exposing practitioners to such moral distress can lead to the experience of vicarious trauma and reduced job satisfaction as they navigate the challenge of exploring the minded-body link with patients on their illness journey. 24 , 25 Primary care practitioners held women’s distress while they waited for specific therapies or supports, and yet the practitioners did not have adequate formal support systems to take care of their own wellbeing. This finding resonates with Pereira Gray et al , 25 who suggest that the UK shortage of GPs, erosion of continuity of care, sustained increase of remote consultation methods, and lack of structural support in the system may exacerbate challenges faced by practitioners to provide high-quality care. 26 – 28

Implications for research and practice

Our findings suggest that moving towards a trauma-informed systems-level approach would support integration of psychological support within multiple care pathways. A coordinated systems approach should support an integrated and holistic approach rather than encouraging a dichotomising split between physical or psychological services. Our findings suggest that this model would also support the wellbeing of practitioners delivering care and may have an impact on staff retention, making this a critical consideration at all system and service levels from individuals to practices to funders and commissioners. 28 , 29 However, less is known about how to enact or enable trauma-informed care at a systems level. 16 More research is needed about how to implement and support equitable, proportionate trauma-informed care in practice. This includes learning how to actively nurture equitable care within services, practices, and within primary care networks. At a funding and commissioning level, autonomy and equitable work need to be valued and enabled, and this requires policy attention; simplistic metrics of care such as numbers seen or a narrow focus on numerically quantifiable access will not capture either the impact on patients or practitioners. 28 Nor will this capture the contacts and appointments that did not happen. Furthermore, critical to effective equitable care is that practitioners need meaningful access to services that they can refer into and that will respond promptly and supportively to the needs identified. Work in areas of care such as female genital mutilation and domestic violence and abuse demonstrate that having acceptable accessible services to refer into enabled inquiry and compassionate care. 30 , 31 It is an ethical prerogative that trauma-informed enquiry is supported by trauma-informed services and support. Finally, support for staff is essential and the responsibility for this should not be devolved to individuals but commissioned and provided for. This contrasts with current policy, such as the wellbeing Quality and Outcomes Framework indicators that arguably devolve the responsibility for wellbeing to those in need of wellbeing support, without offering any tangible resources.

Healthcare professionals are aware of the difficulties in discussing the interface between trauma and complexity with patients 32 and our work shows they are requesting support and guidance in how to negotiate this supportively. The British Medical Association moral injury report 22 recommends systems changes that map onto the principles of trauma-informed care, including increased staffing, streamlining of bureaucracy, open and sharing work cultures, and provision of support for employees. However, although these recommendations acknowledge the problem and offer solutions, there is no requirement for organisations to address these structural concerns. Lack of these system supports for practitioners moves the focus of trauma-informed care from a whole-systems approach to the clinician–patient interaction. 16

To seek lived-experience perspectives on our findings, 33 we spoke with three representatives of charities supporting survival sex workers (SSW) in different regions of England as an exemplar vulnerable group with significant experience of historical and ongoing trauma. They told us how women experience stigma and are afraid of disclosure and confidentiality, particularly if their children have been removed and placed into social care. The charity representatives described how women engaged in SSW rarely sought medical care or achieved registration at a general practice surgery because of lifestyle circumstances and stigmatising experiences.

We asked what trauma-informed care looked like for their service and asked them to reflect on our findings. They recommended a systems-level approach to the delivery of trauma-informed services across the health service. Barriers to access were described as starting at the front door of the general practice surgery with the reaction of the receptionist. A lack of confidentiality in the reception area, closed consulting room doors, short consultation times, and the predominance of digital access methods for appointments were also cited. Beyond these, they suggested responsive, transparent pathways into support services for vulnerable women or those living in extreme circumstances would illustrate a trauma-informed approach to services. Individual practitioners were credited with adopting a trustworthy, trauma-informed approach but charity representatives, in consultation with the women they support, felt that the healthcare system could counteract individual good practice.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of our Public Involvement participants and express our thanks for the insights they shared with the research team.

This study was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (NIHR202450). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Ethical approval

This study has received ethical approval from the Health Research Authority (ref 22/HRA/0985).

The authors do not have ethical permission to share their dataset beyond the study team.

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article:

bjgp.org/letters

Received January 12, 2024.
Revision requested February 19, 2024.
Accepted April 9, 2024.
© The Authors

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence ( http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/ ).

Department of Health and Social Care
Fairweather D ,
Pearson WS ,
Petruccelli K ,
Di Lemma L ,
Davies AR ,
Dohrenwend BP
Office for National Statistics (ONS)
Andrews AR ,
Jobe-Shields L ,
Eckstrand KL ,
Alessi EJ ,
NHS England
Chew-Graham CA ,
Heyland S ,
Kingstone T ,
MacLellan J ,
Ruggiano N ,
Machtinger EL ,
Shohaimi S ,
Khaledi-Paveh B ,
McKeller L ,
Fleet J-A ,
British Medical Association
Molinaro ML ,
Agarwal G ,
Kokokyi S ,
Pereira Gray D ,
Sidaway-Lee K ,
De Simona A ,
Szilassy E ,
Vennik JL ,
NIHR School for Primary Care Research

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 74 (746)

Table of Contents
Index by author

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Citation Manager Formats

EndNote (tagged)
EndNote 8 (xml)
RefWorks Tagged
Ref Manager

Tweet Widget
Facebook Like
Google Plus One

Jump to section

Extract insights from Customer & Employee Interviews. At Scale.

8 best qualitative research tools.

Home » 8 Best Qualitative Research Tools

Qualitative research plays a vital role in understanding human experiences, motivations, and behaviors. Researchers often face the challenge of analyzing complex data gathered through interviews and focus groups. To navigate this intricacy, selecting the right qualitative tools is essential. This section explores the top qualitative tools available, designed to simplify the analysis process and enhance research quality.

With an array of options, these tools cater to varying expertise levels, ensuring accessibility for both seasoned researchers and newcomers. By harnessing these top qualitative tools, you can effectively convert rich qualitative data into meaningful insights, guiding critical decisions in your projects. As we delve into our top picks, you will discover how they can transform your research experience.

Why Qualitative Research Matters

Qualitative research plays a crucial role in understanding users' experiences, motivations, and behaviors. It sheds light on the nuances that quantitative data might overlook, providing rich insights that can drive meaningful change. When organizations aim to improve products, services, or customer interactions, qualitative research tools become invaluable. They enable researchers to unearth deep sentiments and perspectives that help in crafting solutions tailored to real needs.

These tools can reveal patterns and shared themes that inform strategic decisions. For instance, by analyzing verbatim responses, researchers can identify key insights that resonate across different participants. This understanding goes beyond surface-level statistics, facilitating a more profound comprehension of user needs. Embracing qualitative research empowers teams to ask the right questions and engage with customers on a deeper level, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of their strategies. Understanding these aspects is essential for anyone looking to utilize top qualitative tools effectively.

Key Features of Top Qualitative Tools

Top Qualitative Tools share several key features that enhance their effectiveness for researchers. Ease of use is crucial; tools should simplify complex processes, making them accessible to users without extensive research experience. User-friendly interfaces enable quick learning and seamless integration into various projects. Furthermore, robust data analysis capabilities allow researchers to extract meaningful insights effortlessly, breaking down intricate interview transcripts and qualitative data effectively.

Another vital feature is customization. The best tools can adapt to unique research needs, allowing users to tailor their analysis workflows. Added functionalities such as tagging, sorting, and interactive visualizations enhance understanding of collected data. Collaborative features also stand out, enabling teams to work together efficiently and share valuable insights. In sum, Top Qualitative Tools provide comprehensive solutions that transform raw data into actionable insights, empowering researchers to make informed decisions based on nuanced interpretations.

Top Qualitative Tools for Effective Research

Understanding the top qualitative tools for effective research can significantly enhance your insights and findings. These tools allow researchers to collect, analyze, and interpret qualitative data, making the process more structured and insightful. From interview analysis to survey response evaluation, these tools cater to various research needs.

Key tools in this domain include transcription software, qualitative data analysis platforms, and user feedback systems. For instance, transcription software simplifies converting spoken words into written text, enabling more focused analysis. Qualitative data analysis tools provide robust frameworks for identifying patterns, themes, and insights from collected information. Additionally, user feedback systems facilitate direct engagement with participants, ensuring that the insights gained are relevant and actionable. Together, these top qualitative tools empower researchers to derive meaningful conclusions, ultimately driving informed decision-making.

Software Solutions for Qualitative Data Analysis

Qualitative data analysis is essential for understanding complex human behaviors and emotions. Utilizing software solutions can significantly enhance this process, making it efficient and systematic. The top qualitative tools are designed to simplify the transcription, analysis, and reporting of qualitative data, which often involves text, audio, and video formats. These tools help researchers focus on deriving meaningful insights instead of spending excessive time on tedious manual tasks.

When selecting software solutions for qualitative data analysis, consider key features such as automation, ease of use, and collaboration capabilities. Here are some crucial aspects to evaluate:

Automation : Look for tools that offer automated transcription and analysis to save time and reduce errors.

Collaboration : Opt for software that facilitates teamwork, allowing multiple researchers to work on the same project seamlessly.

Data Visualization : Choose tools that provide visualization options to make insights more digestible.

Integration : Ensure that the software can integrate with other research tools or databases.

Support and Training : Good software comes with responsive customer support and educational resources.

Choosing the right software can lead to more accurate insights and a streamlined research process, ultimately enhancing the quality of qualitative analysis.

NVivo: An In-Depth Look

NVivo stands out among the top qualitative tools by providing researchers with a user-friendly and efficient platform for data analysis. Its innovative features allow users to quickly organize, manage, and analyze qualitative data, transforming complex datasets into actionable insights. One notable aspect is its ability to adapt to various project needs. Researchers can utilize ready-made templates tailored for market research, employee engagement, or product development.

Additionally, NVivo enhances the analysis process through AI integrations. This capability enables users to pose intricate questions and receive clear, data-driven responses in moments. With its visual dashboards, researchers can easily track their findings, facilitating a deeper understanding of the data at hand. Overall, NVivo is not only a powerful tool for qualitative research but also an essential asset for those seeking to derive meaningful insights from their data efficiently.

Atlas.ti: Simplifying Complex Data

The tool excels in simplifying complex data, making it easier for researchers to analyze. By integrating various features, it allows users to create robust datasets while highlighting relevant insights. Researchers can delve into multi-project queries to extract information across numerous datasets. This capability is especially beneficial in qualitative research, as it provides a holistic view of varied data sources.

Moreover, visual experiences like journey maps enhance data interpretation by transforming abstract concepts into tangible representations. Users can draft recommendations based on concrete data, guiding decision-making processes in fields such as banking and customer experience. With its user-friendly approach, the tool stands out as one of the top qualitative tools for researchers aiming to uncover meaningful insights efficiently. Streamlining the analysis process ultimately empowers researchers to focus on their core objectives while navigating the complexities of qualitative data.

Online Tools for Qualitative Surveys

Online tools for qualitative surveys have revolutionized the research process, enabling researchers to gather insights efficiently. These tools facilitate the collection and analysis of qualitative data, allowing for a deeper understanding of participants' perspectives. Throughout this journey, the challenge lies in selecting the right technology that meets the needs of your study while ensuring ease of use for all participants.

Several key online tools can enhance your qualitative research efforts. Firstly, engaging survey platforms offer intuitive designs that make it simple for respondents to share their thoughts. Secondly, transcription services convert verbal interviews into text quickly, saving valuable time. Additionally, visualization tools help researchers to interpret and present their findings in a compelling manner. Each of these solutions aims to streamline the process and improve data quality, making your research more effective. Remember, selecting the right tool can significantly impact the quality of insights you gain.

SurveyMonkey: Powering Research with Ease

When it comes to qualitative research, efficient data collection and analysis are crucial. This platform excels in powering research with ease, allowing users to create insightful surveys quickly. With user-friendly features, researchers can effortlessly design tailored surveys to capture rich qualitative data. Through engaging formats, such as open-ended questions, the platform encourages participants to share their thoughts and experiences in greater detail.

Additionally, the platform offers a powerful AI-driven analysis tool that transforms raw data into valuable insights. By using customizable templates, researchers can streamline their projects for various purposes like market analysis or employee engagement. This capability ensures that researchers can extract actionable insights faster, aiding in decision-making processes. With these robust features, the platform stands out among the top qualitative tools, enabling better understanding and more informed strategies.

Google Forms: A Free and Flexible Tool

Google Forms is a robust option among the top qualitative tools available today. Its user-friendly interface is designed to cater to researchers of all experience levels. With this tool, you can easily create surveys, collect data, and analyze responses without needing advanced technical skills. This flexibility makes it an ideal platform for various research needs, from academic studies to user feedback initiatives.

Here are some key features that enhance Google Forms' appeal:

Customization : Users can incorporate various question types, including multiple choice, text responses, and checkboxes to tailor surveys to specific research goals.

Real-Time Collaboration : Teams can collaborate on forms simultaneously, allowing seamless communication and faster data collection.

Accessibility : Since it is cloud-based, researchers can access their forms and data from any device, enhancing workflow efficiency.

Automatic Data Collection : Responses are automatically gathered and can be visualized in charts for easy analysis, facilitating quick insights.

These features underscore why Google Forms remains a go-to tool for qualitative research efforts.

Tools for Ethnographic Research

Ethnographic research often requires specific tools that facilitate in-depth understanding of cultural and social dynamics. These tools gather qualitative data through direct observation, interviews, and participatory methods. Among the top qualitative tools available, researchers can utilize field notes, audio recordings, and video documentation. Each of these tools plays a significant role in capturing the nuances of human experience.

Field notes allow researchers to document their observations in real-time, offering insights that might not be captured through formal interviews. Audio recordings of conversations can provide deeper context, enabling researchers to analyze tone and emotional cues. Video documentation captures visual interactions and settings, further enriching the understanding of a subject's environment. Employing these tools in ethnographic research ensures a comprehensive approach to data collection, ultimately leading to richer insights and more reliable conclusions.

Dedoose: Multi-Method Research Simplified

Dedoose simplifies multi-method research by seamlessly integrating qualitative and quantitative data analysis tools. Researchers can explore and synthesize complex information without the hassle of traditional methods. This tool is particularly useful for projects that involve multiple interviews, allowing users to manage and analyze data effectively. By offering features like the research matrix, it facilitates the comparison of themes across various transcripts, leading to richer insights.

Developers designed this software to enhance collaboration and streamline workflows. Users can easily mix standard spreadsheet tasks with advanced AI functions, making it a standout choice among top qualitative tools. As a result, researchers can extract specific insights and identify trends efficiently. This capabilities ultimately empower teams to make data-driven decisions that are informed by clear, actionable findings, ensuring a more structured approach to qualitative research.

MAXQDA: Bridging Quantitative and Qualitative Data

MAXQDA plays a vital role in bridging the gap between qualitative and quantitative data, acting as a robust research tool. In the realm of qualitative research, it supports users by analyzing text, audio, and video data, thus enriching the understanding of complex insights. This dual approach allows researchers to complement numerical data with rich narratives, providing a more holistic view of their studies.

One of the standout features of MAXQDA is its ability to automate insights and streamline reporting workflows. By minimizing the need for manual data transcriptions and analyses, it significantly enhances efficiency while maintaining high-quality outcomes. The integration of AI technologies ensures a reduction in bias, prompting better decision-making based on reliable data. Ultimately, tools like this exemplify the future of qualitative research, allowing for deeper insights that greatly inform strategies and outcomes.

Real-Time Collaboration Tools

In today’s rapidly evolving work environment, real-time collaboration tools have become essential for qualitative research teams. These tools allow multiple team members to contribute ideas and insights simultaneously, fostering creativity and enhancing productivity. Tools like shared digital whiteboards and brainstorming platforms enable researchers to organize thoughts visually, ensuring that no critical perspective is overlooked.

Moreover, real-time collaboration enhances communication among team members, providing instant feedback and support. Using chat features or video conferencing, teams can discuss findings and refine strategies immediately. This synergy is crucial when adapting to emerging trends or shifts in data. Ultimately, incorporating real-time collaboration into qualitative research processes streamlines workflows and produces richer, more nuanced insights. By utilizing the best qualitative tools available, research teams can transform their approach to gathering and analyzing information effectively.

Microsoft OneNote: Collaborative Note-Taking

Microsoft OneNote is a powerful tool for collaborative note-taking, making it a top contender among qualitative research tools. It enables users to gather and organize ideas from various discussions in a structured manner. By storing conversations, summaries, and highlights, users can easily revisit key insights that emerge during collaborative sessions. This capability encourages seamless communication among team members while allowing everyone to contribute their thoughts and perspectives.

Moreover, OneNote supports various media formats, allowing users to incorporate images, links, and documents. This versatility enhances the richness of data collected, encouraging dynamic interactions. The tool also enables project integration, simplifying the process of linking notes to specific tasks or objectives. Its user-friendly interface streamlines collaboration, ensuring that teams can work together efficiently, making it an invaluable asset in qualitative research.

Trello: Organizing Research Processes

Trello excels at organizing research processes by providing a dynamic platform for project management. It allows teams to create boards that can categorize various qualitative research tasks, making collaboration straightforward and effective. For researchers, maintaining clarity amidst complex data collection and analysis is essential, and this tool facilitates that by enabling users to establish individual cards for each aspect of their research.

Each card can include descriptions, checklists, and attachments, ensuring that every detail is covered. Additionally, Trello’s commenting feature allows team members to communicate directly on respective tasks, thus reducing miscommunication. By visually representing tasks and their progress, Trello enhances the overall workflow. This level of organization is vital for researchers striving to achieve quality insights while managing time efficiently. Ultimately, utilizing such a tool is crucial for anyone looking to streamline their qualitative research efforts.

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Top Qualitative Tools

In conclusion, selecting the right top qualitative tools can significantly enhance your research efforts. The ideal tools should be user-friendly while offering powerful analytics capabilities. This balance allows researchers, regardless of their experience level, to draw valuable insights from their qualitative data.

Consider your specific needs when evaluating these tools. Features such as ease of use, scalability, and integration with existing systems can impact your choice. Ultimately, the right tool will empower you to gather rich, meaningful data, enabling informed decision-making and deeper understanding of your target audience.

Turn interviews into actionable insights

On this Page

5 Effective Market Research Strategies for Product Development

You may also like, 8 alternatives to saturate for research analysis.

8 Alternatives to Getwhy for Qualitative Research

8 alternatives to qualtrics for customer & employee insights.

Unlock Insights from Interviews 10x faster

Request demo
Get started for free

Open access
Published: 04 September 2024

Experiences of patients with advanced chronic diseases and their associates with a structured palliative care nurse visit followed by an interprofessional case conference in primary care – a deductive-inductive content analysis based on qualitative interviews (KOPAL-Study)

Nadine Janis Pohontsch ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0966-4087 1 ,
Jan Weber ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5563-368X 2 ,
Stephanie Stiel ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5963-2526 2 ,
Franziska Schade ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3158-4259 2 , 3 ,
Friedemann Nauck ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7592-1654 3 ,
Janina Timm 1 ,
Martin Scherer 1 &
Gabriella Marx ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6807-9518 1

BMC Primary Care volume 25 , Article number: 323 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia in advanced stages are very burdensome for patients. Timely palliative care with strong collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC) teams can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs. The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment and an interprofessional case conference. This qualitative evaluative study explores patients’, proxies’ and their associates’ motivation to participate in the KOPAL-study and views on the (benefits of the) intervention.

We interviewed 13 male and 10 female patients as well as 14 proxies of patients with dementia and six associates of study participants using a semi-structured interview guide. All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis.

Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment. They had no expectations concerning potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. The majority of interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs.

Our results lead to the conclusion that SPHC nurses can serve as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients’ autonomy. GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with patients and collaboratively decide on further actions. Patient participation in the interdisciplinary case conference could be another way to increase the effects of the intervention by empowering patients to not just passively receive the intervention.

Trial registration

DRKS00017795 German Clinical Trials Register, 17Nov2021, version 05.

Peer Review reports

Chronic, non-malignant diseases (CNMD) like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), congestive heart failure (CHF) and dementia are very burdensome in advanced stages. CNMD are among the most frequent causes of death in Europe and worldwide [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Their numbers will increase in the near future. CNMD are often characterized by high medical complexity and prognostic uncertainty of their course. Timely palliative care can reduce symptom burden, hospitalization rates, hospitalization costs and overall healthcare costs [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ]. Either way, it is provided predominantly to patients with oncological diseases (e.g., [ 11 ]), but not to patients with CNMD. Unsurprisingly, research indicates unmet palliative care needs in patients with CNMD [ 12 , 13 ].

In Germany, palliative home care is divided in general (GPHC) and specialist palliative home care (SPHC). GPHC is provided by general practitioners (GPs), medical specialists and nursing services. SPHC is provided by high qualified health care professionals’ in multiprofessional SPHC teams. Intensive collaboration between GPs and SPHC teams supports the appropriate provision of care for patients with CNMD [ 12 ]. Case conferences are one option to intensify collaboration. Mitchell et al. [ 14 ] showed in a pilot study in Australia that a case conference between GPs and a SPHC team, preceded by a patient-caregiver-nurse conversation on issues of importance, can reduce the number of emergency department visits, hospital admissions and length of stay in hospitals. A strong desire for more intensive collaboration between GPs and specialist palliative care providers exists [ 15 , 16 , 17 ]. Either way, different barriers, e.g. insufficient communication and fragmentation [ 18 ], lack of clarity of prognosis and the hegemony of the curative approach [ 19 ], prevent a timely collaboration. Collaboration between these groups of health care providers needs to be facilitated. Well-prepared case conferences could be part of the solution [ 14 , 20 ]. The (potentially positive) role of palliative care nurses or nurse practitioners in timely delivery of palliative care is widely discussed (e.g., [ 21 , 22 ]). There are some indications from the field of residential aged care and palliative care that health professionals, patients and family caregivers support the idea of interdisciplinary case conferences (e.g. [ 14 , 23 , 24 ]). For instance, Mitchell et al. [ 14 ] report health care professionals’ enthusiasm about an interdisciplinary case conference with a preceding patient-caregiver-nurse conversation.

The KOPAL-study on strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs is a multicentre, two-arm, cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT, [ 25 ]). It tested the effect of an intervention comprising of a SPHC nurse assessment, a brief consultation between this SPHC nurse and a SPHC physician and an interprofessional case conference of SPHC nurse, SPHC physician and GP. It aimed at reducing hospitalizations, symptom burden, medication use, and increasing patients’ quality of life and medical providers’ collaboration within 48 weeks after intervention [ 25 ]. A multiperspectival quantitative and qualitative evaluation including all participating actors was part of the KOPAL-study [ 26 , 27 ]. In this paper the qualitative evaluation of the patients’ perspective will be addressed.

We aimed to answer the following research questions: What motivated patients and their proxies to take part in the study? How did the patients experience the individual components of the intervention? From the patients’ and proxies’ point of view, what has changed in patients’ health and healthcare as a result of study participation?

We conducted qualitative interviews with patients, proxies (for persons with dementia) and their associates, and analyzed them using a deductive-inductive approach of content analysis [ 28 ] to assess feasibility and acceptance of the KOPAL-intervention.

The KOPAL-study and intervention

The KOPAL-study [ 25 ] comprises a RCT and its quantitative and qualitative evaluation from different perspectives (GPs, SPHC nurse and physicians, and patients, their proxies and associates). Patients with COPD [ 29 ], CHF [ 30 ] and dementia [ 31 ] and dementia patients’ associates (as proxies) took part in the study. For further description of the patient population see [ 26 ]. The control arm provided patients with usual care (i.e. intervention was not offered at a later point in time) while the intervention comprises of a home-visit or (due to the COVID-19 pandemic) telephone call of a SPHC nurse, followed by a consultation between this nurse and a SPHC physician, and an interprofessional case conference (via telephone) of the GP, the SPHC nurse and the SPHC physician.

The SPHC nurses used the ´KOPAL conversation guide´ [ 32 ] to assess patients’ current life and health situation. Participants were neither instructed to prepare for the conversation with the nurse nor to discuss it with the GP afterwards. Correspondingly GPs were not instructed to explicitly discuss the case conference and its results with the patients. The SPHC nurse home visit (respectively phone call) lasted approx. 60 min. Case conferences lasted 5–60 min (on average 18 min) per patient and followed no prescribed structure. The qualitative evaluation interviews took place after the last follow-up-interview (48 weeks after baseline assessment/intervention) to avoid influencing the intervention.

Recruitment and participants

Following a purposive sampling approach [ 33 ] we aimed at recruiting participating patients or proxies respectively and close relatives or acquainted persons of the patients (hereafter called associates). At the end of the last standardized follow up-interview all 65 study participants remaining in the intervention group (patients or proxies) were invited to participate in a qualitative interview to share their experiences with and thoughts about the KOPAL-study/intervention. Patients willing to take part in the qualitative interview were invited to name an associate to be interviewed, too. Usually these associates did not participate in any component of the KOPAL-study, but nevertheless had (some) knowledge about the patients’ participation in the study. Proxies of people with dementia were not asked to name another potential interviewee as they already fill the associate role.

Potential interviewees received verbal and written study information, a response sheet and a prepaid envelope. Interview participation was voluntary, reasons for non-participation were not collected. Persons willing to participate gave their written informed consent before the interview conduction. Interviewees did not receive an allowance.

Of those invited, 37 participants (42%) [patients ( n = 23), proxies ( n = 14)] were willing to take part in an interview. All 23 patients willing to participate were asked to name an associate. Seven patients did so. Subsequently seven associates were invited of which 6 (86%) participated. We interviewed 13 male patients ( n = 8 with COPD, n = 5 with CHF) and 10 female patients with COPD ( n = 2), CHF ( n = 5) or both ( n = 2). 14 proxies of patients with dementia ( n = 7 wives, n = 3 daughters and one sister, son, husband and partner respectively) and six associates ( n = 4 wives, n = 2 husbands; living together) of study participants were also interviewd. Patient interviews lasted 14–45 min (mean 26 min), interviews with proxies 18–54 min (mean 27 min) and interviews with associates 8–50 min (mean 25 min).

Interview conduction

JW and NP conducted all the interviews using a semi-structured topic guide [ 34 ] via telephone between 02/2021 and 03/2022. Telephone interviews were favored to face-to-face-interviews due to the ongoing COVID-19-pandemic. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. NP and JW were known to some, but not all study participants from the recruiting and standardized interviewing procedures of the KOPAL-study. No further relationship/dependency existed between researchers and interviewees.

Interview guide

The interview guide was based on the research questions. The guide was available in three different versions (for patients, proxies of a person with dementia or associates). Topics were: the overall evaluation of the KOPAL-intervention, changes in health care and state triggered by the intervention, as well as the GP-patient-/-proxy/-associate-interaction following the case conference. See Table 1 for a translated version of the interview guide for patients who talked to the SPHC nurse on the phone (majority of interviewees). Corresponding guides for the interviews with the proxies and associates can be found in additional file 1 and 2.

Data analysis

We (NP, JT and JW) analyzed the data using structuring qualitative content analysis as described by Kuckartz [ 28 ]. This kind of qualitative analysis is used to systematically extract, structure, describe and condense interviewees’ answers to open questions following designated rules. We chose a deductive-inductive approach to category-building using the same coding system for all interviews. NP, JT and JW familiarized themselves with the interview transcripts before coding. As starting point for the analysis deductive categories were derived from the interview guide and research questions by NP (in discussion with JW). Additional inductive categories were created either when existing deductive categories did not capture the content of the transcripts (e.g. new topics emerged from the material) or deductive categories needed subcategories to refine the coding system. If a relevant fragment was first identified, a category name was derived from this fragment and a description of the category was drafted, supplemented by a supporting quote. Codes could be assigned to text fragments adopting different sizes (ranging from part of a sentence to one or more paragraphs) in relation to the segment length needed to understand the content and context of the relevant accounts.

NP started the coding process with two transcripts and discussed coding with JW. JW coded two more manuscripts using and refining the coding system created by NP. When necessary additional inductive categories were created throughout the further coding process by JT, JW and NP. All changes to the coding system were discussed between NP, JW, JT and GM. Coding and category development were constantly discussed throughout the research process until the data relevant to the research questions were completely coded. To ensure intersubjective comprehensibility and credibility [ 35 ] of the analysis the results were discussed with GM on regular basis and presented and discussed at the DEGAM congress 2022. Data were managed and analysis was carried out using MAXQDA 12. Illustrating quotes in the results section were translated from German by NP and double checked by JW. “/” indicates an abrupt ending of a word or sentence.

Researcher characteristics

Researchers’ characteristics, beliefs and assumptions can influence qualitative research and data interpretation [ 36 ]. NP: female, psychologist, experiences in qualitative research (QR) in the field of health services/care research; JT: female, student of Public Health (M.A.), experiences in QR; JW: male, public health researcher, experiences in QR, GM: female, sociologist, experiences in QR in the field of medical sociology and health services/care research.

The study was reviewed and approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (no. PV7090) as well as the ethics committees of the University Medical Centre Goettingen, Germany (no. 34/1/20Ü), the Hannover Medical School (no. 8815 BO K 2019), and the University of Oldenburg (no. 2019 − 145). The trial is registered in the German clinical trial register (registration number DRKS00017795; first registration 09/01/2020).

Interviewees talked positively about study participation and the nurse visit. They described themselves as being motivated to participate by curiosity, wanting to do the GP a favor and support research to help other patients. Positive effects concerning health care or quality of life were meagerly reported. Most interviewees reported no communication about the KOPAL study or intervention with their treating and participating GPs.

All in all, 43 interviews were analyzed and coded. The results section is structured according to the research questions: (a) motivation to take part in the study, (b) evaluation of the intervention components and (c) changes in health and healthcare. Table 2 shows an overview over the main and subcategories described in the following section.

A) Motivation to take part in the study

Interviewees stated different motivations to take part in the study, most of them not related to their potential personal benefit, but to overarching goals like satisfying their own curiosity and being helpful to GPs, researchers and other patients.

Participants stated that they were curious to take part in the study or flattered that the university was interested in them. Some saw a chance to learn something new or get insights into research studies by taking part in the study, like this patients’ with dementia wife (taking part as a proxy): “Y es , I said I’d do it , why not? I mean , you can only learn from it.” (R1). Nearly no interviewee seemed to be motivated by specific hopes or expectations in relation to their own health or care burden.

Pleasing the GP

Potential participants received the invitation to take part in the study from their treating GPs. Study participants stated that they took part in the study because their GP proposed or ‘recommended’ the study to them, implying that it would be good for them to take part.

Patient: Well participation , because and my GP Dr. [name] somehow recommended me , recommended me or I don’t know how that/ , that’s how it came about and I didn’t want to say no , because I like Dr. [name] very much and he actually is a , I would say , very open-minded doctor. (R2, COPD)

Other just participated in order to please or help their GPs (being study participants on cluster level). This impetus was mostly based on a stable positive relationship between the patients (or their proxies) and the GPs.

Proxy: […] So because she is , she is very engaged and puts out her feelers in many areas , I will say , is very curious and I have already benefited from that. I just thought , if Ms. [name] wants to take part in such a study , then it is also important to her , and that’s why I said , okay , she looks after my mother so well , so we really feel in good hands there , […] , but I thought so , if Ms. [name] takes part there , then I would also like to support her there. (R3, daughter)

In both cases it seemed as if interviewees did not want to refuse their family doctor’s request to participate.

Make a contribution to research and helping other patients

Interviewees described that in their opinion doing research has a value in itself and should therefore be supported.

Associate: […] well there is little stuff with regard to studies […] on COPD , […] from a scientific point of view that’s a relatively new disease. […] you have to be thankful and support everything there is , […] that there are people , who try to do something against it or search for or find help. Well/ And that’s why this was for us , well , if I may speak for us , this was self-evident , that we would take part. […] (R4, husband)

Participants described themselves as motivated by the prospect of helping others, future patients or patients that are worse off than themselves.

Patient: Well , I think it is very important to conduct studies , […] from which everybody can learn […] , however , that you are open to it for a start and help even more. That’s why I’m always willing to take part in studies. (R5, heart failure)

Asked globally, many of the interviewed patients did not remember or state to have expected immediate specific positive effects for themselves from taking part in this research study.

Specific care-related expectations

Many interviewees were unable to name specific expectations that motivated their study participation or stated that they had none except the abovementioned (e.g. doing the GP a favor or one’s stint for research). Some interviewees mentioned specific care-related expectations such as reduction or change of medication. For example one patient with heart failure and a long medication list stated: “ Well , I hoped that I would have to take less tablets. And also , that I would maybe a little bit less worn-out. […]” (R6). Others expected to get better treatment in general, get recommendations with regard to physicians to consult or improvement of their health (behavior).

Patient: Well , in fact , that what I said at the end , with a background of “Maybe they can help me.” , no? With my bronchia , for example , no? That you really say “Gosh , Mr. [name] , […] , maybe you could go there and there , to this or that physician. Or to this or that clinic. And then you let yourself get examined thoroughly.” […] . (R7, COPD)

Another care-related expectation was to receive support and recommendations for associates or informal caregivers.

Proxy: […] and I had expected that you would have one or the other hint , what to do better or how my mother’s care could get more extensive […] . (R3, daughter)

Some interviewees reported rather unspecific expectations like getting some (unspecified) kind of help or impulses for caring for their relatives (interviewed proxies) and having another contact person. Some had misguided expectations like taking part in a trial to test a new medication.

B) Evaluation of the KOPAL intervention

Even though recall was often limited due to the long period of time since the intervention, interviewees reported some assessments of the intervention components. The overall evaluation of the KOPAL-intervention was positive. Little communication between patients and professionals was reported.

Evaluation of the SPHC nurse home-visit

Positive evaluation.

The guided conversation left room for questions not only to be asked by the nurse, but also by the interviewees. Sometimes welcome advice was given by the SPHC nurse, although that was not intended. Interviewees reported that there was enough time to discuss all topics of importance.

Proxy: Well , I thought it to be very good and intimate , no? To some extend she counseled us on what you could do and it was very intimate somehow. In contrary to being pegged , queried and then we will see what we can do , no? […] She had also taken a lot of time to do it. Not working under time pressure. (R8, life partner)

Interviewees described the palliative care nurse as friendly, attentive and competent. All in all, interviewees evaluated the SPHC nurse home-visit positively. Some interviewees stated that they had not benefited from the nurse visit, but they did not evaluate that negatively.

Topics discussed

According to the interviewees the content of the conversations with the SPHC nurse covered a wide spectrum from more general discussions of the overall situation to counselling on targeted support measures.

Patient: Yes , it was a lot about my degree of care and […] how I can get other support besides my husband , who is my carer , can get other support. And I found that very good. (R5, heart failure)

Other topics were dying and palliative care, provision of medical aids, pain and nursing services.

Patient: Yes , […] that one then also possibly has such , an example , if one now has it [COPD/CHF] really extremely […] that one can then also go to such a ward , that one is cared for palliative , to die. […] Or that you might want to die at home , but what I have often explained in our conversations is that […] I don’t want that. That I would die here at home somehow. (R9, COPD)

General topics included for example health, household chores, self-care or mobility. More specific topics like getting support from volunteers, application for services of the public care insurance (‘care degree’) or preparation of mandates.

Communication between the GP and the patient

All in all the interviewees reported little communication between themselves and the GPs concerning the KOPAL study and intervention.

Communication on study participation

Most of the interviewees reported that there was no conversation about the KOPAL-study between them and their treating GPs. It seems, from the interviewees’ perspective, that GPs might have had too little time to discuss the subject in a consultation: “No , she didn’t have time for that (laughs). […] (R5 , heart failure). Some GPs inquired whether the patients decided to take part in the study but never mentioned the study again as far as the interviewees remembered.

Proxy: […] The doctor , Ms. [name] , had not commented on it at all. She had only asked at the beginning whether we had participated and whether we had received a visit from Cobra [mispronounced name of the KOPAL-study] , and I had said “Yes , that’s so and the first talks have already been held , also by telephone” and she agreed to that. That was enough for her. (R8, life partner)

Other interviewees mentioned that they seldom consulted the GP during the time of the study indicating that that might have been a reason for not having discussed aspects of the KOPAL study or intervention during consultations.

Communication on the palliative care nurse visit and case conference

The study design did not specify whether the GPs should communicate the results of the case conference. It has been shown, that apparently only few of them have sought a conversation with their patients (or patients’ proxies). Most interviewees reported that neither the visit of the SPHC nurse nor the case conference were addressed between them and the treating GPs.

Patient: Yes , I was surprised , but he didn’t talk to me about it , and I said I didn’t really have to talk to him about it. Because he has always found out everything I need in terms of my health and I have discussed it with him. But I didn’t talk it through with him. (R10, heart failure)

In most cases neither the patients or proxies nor the GPs seem to have taken initiative to talk about the component of the KOPAL-intervention with each other.

C) Changes in health and healthcare

Interviewees did not associate many positive effects, benefits or changes to the KOPAL-intervention. They did not mention any negative consequences due to their study participation either.

Subjective benefit from the intervention and specific changes

Some specific changes due to the KOPAL-intervention were mentioned. The interviewees sometimes also mentioned other positive aspects or benefits from the KOPAL-study. Some patients reported changes or reduction in medications.

Patient: […] I had announced all my tablets , there was a woman here with me once and she wrote down everything with my tablets , and the professor [incorrect reference to the SPHC physician] immediately called my doctor […]. And then he immediately said , “She should leave that tablet out and he’ll prescribe another one instead.“. And that really helped , it was very good. […] (R11, heart failure)

Other interviewees mentioned additional household help respectively nursing service, the grant of a new care degree and associated eligibility for services by the public care insurance, more home visits of the GP, and the expansion of care to a SPHC service.

Patient: […] since they were here and I get care allowance , if that’s what you mean. […] Yes , that’s it for the moment , at the moment the tablets for the whole week , they come on Monday from community (A) from the deaconry […] and bring them to us for the whole week , and we need household help […] I can’t manage that either , because I can’t bend down so well […] Anyway , now we have the money for the help we need. (R12, heart failure)

All in all, patients, proxies and associates reported only little or often no subjective benefits that they trace back to the KOPAL-intervention throughout the interviews. “ Well , nothing at all in terms of medical care. Everything has remained the same.” (R4, husband) therefore was a common statement. Most interviewees do not seem to have noticed any major changes.

Main results

The KOPAL-study [ 25 ] tests the effect of a novel compact intervention (SPHC nurse home-visit and an interprofessional case conference) on reduction of hospital admissions, symptom burden, health costs, and improvement of quality of life. We evaluated the patients’, proxies’, and associates’ perception of the intervention, specifically the SPHC nurse visit, by conducting and analyzing qualitative interviews. Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Only few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves. The nurse visit was evaluated very positively. Positive changes concerning health care or quality of life were reported sparsely. Most interviewees reported that they did not talk about the nurse visit and the interprofessional case conference with their GPs.

Discussion of results and comparison with existing literature

Our results show that the nurses’ home visit/phone call using the KOPAL conversation guide [ 32 ] to assess the patients’ current life and health situation and identify patients’ specific palliative care needs was very well accepted by patients, proxies and associates. Similar assessments of palliative care needs were shown to be well accepted in other studies, too, e.g. [ 37 ]. In some cases our interviewees reported to have received some advice during the structured assessment by the SPHC nurse and some patients reported changes due to having had this conversation. Therefore it can be assumed that the SPHC home visit might have a positive effect itself and can be considered a reasonable addition to conducting case conferences just as it was the case in Mitchell et al.’s pilot study [ 14 ].

We found that participants did not prepare for the conversations with the SPHC nurse. Maybe this was partly because they did not expect an individual benefit for themselves (or the associated patient) from the intervention, but were motivated by positive attitudes towards research and altruistic motives to help other as it was shown by Carandang et al. [ 38 ] for elderly patients. Interviewees reported a rather passive role in the intervention. This might also have been the case due to participants’ confusion over the role of the SPHC nurse visit and the role of the interdisciplinary case conference for their own or the associated patients’ future care. Not all interviewees seemed to have made the connection between the SPHC nurse visit and the interdisciplinary case conference. This confusion is already known from other studies (e.g., [ 23 ]). Other studies show that being asked to identify questions before such an exchange with professionals might be beneficial and that it is important explicitly explain the purpose of the intervention to increase acceptability and benefit for patients [ 39 ].

Interviewees reported lack of communication between patients and GPs about the results of the interdisciplinary case conferences. This could have hindered resolved changes in care to be implemented. Integrating a mandatory discussion of case conference results and refinement of the plan between the GP and the patient or proxy (as it was the case in Mitchell et al.’s study [ 14 ]) could have helped to realize potential changes/actions decided on in the case conference. This could increase the impact of the intervention.

Strengths and limitations

We interviewed patients in an advanced stage of their disease, proxies of patients with dementia, and patients’ associates. We were able to obtain a comprehensive view on and a subjective evaluation of the KOPAL-intervention. Due to the randomized controlled design of the KOPAL-study we decided to schedule qualitative interviews after the last quantitative follow-up interview to prevent contamination of intervention effects and to maintain the comparability with the control group. Therefore no qualitative interview data is available from participants deceased during the follow-up period. Furthermore, the rather long time period between study enrollment, intervention and evaluation interview might have induced a reduced memory of the SPHC nurse home-visit/phone call.

The results give some indication what to consider in a future implementation of the KOPAL-intervention in regular care. Most study participants did not prepare for the SPHC nurse assessment and had no expectations concerning the potential benefits of such an assessment, the interdisciplinary case conference and an early integration of palliative care. This points to the conclusion that the SPHC nurse can act as an advocate for the patient and thereby support the patients’ (and their proxies’/caregivers’) autonomy. Another way to increase the effects of the intervention could be letting the patients (and/or their proxies/caregivers) take part in the interdisciplinary case conference. This could empower patients (and/or their proxies/caregivers) to not just passively receive the intervention but to actively take part in deciding on further actions. Besides this measure to activate the patients (and/or their proxies/caregivers), GPs should actively discuss the results of the interdisciplinary case conference with the patients and collaboratively decide on further actions to be realized. Further research is needed to evaluate the effects of the proposed changes.

Data availability

No data are available. The data generated and analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the study’s assurances to participants that the full raw interview data would not be shared publicly, and that all attempts would be made to maintain confidentiality.

Abbreviations

Congestive heart failure

Chronic, non-malignant diseases

Chronic, obstructive pulmonary disease

General practitioner

Specialist palliative home care

Strengthening interprofessional collaboration for patients with palliative care needs – development and evaluation of a new concept

Ponikowski P, Anker SD, AlHabib KF, Cowie MR, Force TL, Hu S, et al. Heart failure: preventing disease and death worldwide. ESC Heart Fail. 2014;1:4–25.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/chronic-obstructive-pulmonary-disease-(copd) . Accessed 28 Sep 2022.

The top 10 causes of death. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/the-top-10-causes-of-death . Accessed 28 Sep 2022.

Gesundheit Europa - Statistisches Bundesamt. https://www.destatis.de/Europa/DE/Thema/Bevoelkerung-Arbeit-Soziales/Gesundheit/_inhalt.html . Accessed 28 Sep 2022.

Alonso-Babarro A, Astray-Mochales J, Domínguez-Berjón F, Gènova-Maleras R, Bruera E, Díaz-Mayordomo A, et al. The association between in-patient death, utilization of hospital resources and availability of palliative home care for cancer patients. Palliat Med. 2013;27:68–75.

Ranganathan A, Dougherty M, Waite D, Casarett D. Can palliative home care reduce 30-day readmissions? Results of a propensity score matched cohort study. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:1290–3.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Lukas L, Foltz C, Paxton H. Hospital outcomes for a home-based palliative medicine consulting service. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:179–84.

Riolfi M, Buja A, Zanardo C, Marangon CF, Manno P, Baldo V. Effectiveness of palliative home-care services in reducing hospital admissions and determinants of hospitalization for terminally ill patients followed up by a palliative home-care team: a retrospective cohort study. Palliat Med. 2014;28:403–11.

Gonzalez-Jaramillo V, Fuhrer V, Gonzalez-Jaramillo N, Kopp-Heim D, Eychmüller S, Maessen M. Impact of home-based palliative care on health care costs and hospital use: a systematic review. Palliat Support Care. 2021;19:474–87.

Quinn KL, Shurrab M, Gitau K, Kavalieratos D, Isenberg SR, Stall NM, et al. Association of Receipt of Palliative Care Interventions with Health Care Use, Quality of Life, and Symptom Burden among adults with chronic Noncancer illness: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020;324:1439–50.

Osman H, Shrestha S, Temin S, Ali ZV, Corvera RA, Ddungu HD, et al. Palliative Care in the Global setting: ASCO Resource-Stratified Practice Guideline. J Glob Oncol. 2018;4:1–24.

PubMed Google Scholar

Kavalieratos D, Corbelli J, Zhang D, Dionne-Odom JN, Ernecoff NC, Hanmer J, et al. Association between Palliative Care and Patient and Caregiver outcomes: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316:2104–14.

Marx G, Nasse M, Stanze H, Boakye SO, Nauck F, Schneider N. Meaning of living with severe chronic obstructive lung disease: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011555.

Mitchell GK, Senior HE, Bibo MP, Makoni B, Young SN, Rosenberg JP, et al. Evaluation of a pilot of nurse practitioner led, GP supported rural palliative care provision. BMC Palliat Care. 2016;15:93.

Becka D, Riese A, Rychlik RPT, Huenges B, Rusche H. [General practitioners in palliative care in Germany: a systematic review]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1946. 2014;139:2254–8.

CAS Google Scholar

Lizama N, Johnson CE, Ghosh M, Garg N, Emery JD, Saunders C. Keeping primary care in the loop: general practitioners want better communication with specialists and hospitals when caring for people diagnosed with cancer. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2015;11:152–9.

Behmann M, Jünger S, Radbruch L, Schneider N. Public health actions to improve palliative care in Germany: results of a three-round Delphi study. Health Policy Amst Neth. 2012;106:303–12.

Article Google Scholar

Stichling K, Krause M, Ditscheid B, Hach M, Jansky M, Kaufmann M, et al. Factors influencing GPs’ perception of specialised palliative homecare (SPHC) importance - results of a cross-sectional study. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19:117.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Mahtani-Chugani V, González-Castro I, de Ormijana-Hernández AS, Martín-Fernández R, de la Vega EF. How to provide care for patients suffering from terminal non-oncological diseases: barriers to a palliative care approach. Palliat Med. 2010;24:787–95.

Hirakawa Y, Chiang C, Muraya T, Andoh H, Aoyama A. Interprofessional case conferences to bridge perception gaps regarding ethical dilemmas in home-based end-of-life care: a qualitative study. J Rural Med JRM. 2020;15:104–15.

Lewis EA. Optimizing the delivery of early palliative care for hematology patients receiving a stem cell transplant: a role for a nurse practitioner. Can Oncol Nurs J Rev Can Nurs Oncol. 2020;30:239–45.

Kennedy C, Brooks Young P, Nicol J, Campbell K, Gray Brunton C. Fluid role boundaries: exploring the contribution of the advanced nurse practitioner to multi-professional palliative care. J Clin Nurs. 2015;24:3296–305.

Halcomb EJ, Shepherd BM, Griffiths R. Perceptions of multidisciplinary case conferencing in residential aged care facilities. Aust Health Rev Publ Aust Hosp Assoc. 2009;33:566–71.

Halcomb EJ. Feasibility and sustainability of a model of multidisciplinary case conferencing in residential aged care. Aust J Prim Health. 2009;15:238–43.

Marx G, Mallon T, Pohontsch P NJ, Schade F, Dams J, Zimansky M, et al. Effectiveness of a specialist palliative home care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional telephone case conference compared with usual care among patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: protocol for the multicentre KOPAL cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e059440.

Mallon T, Schulze J, Dams J, Weber J, Asendorf T, Böttcher S et al. Evaluating palliative care case conferences in primary care for patients with advanced non-malignant chronic conditions: a cluster-randomised controlled trial (KOPAL). Age Ageing. 2024;53:afae100.

Gottschalk S, König H-H, Mallon T, Schulze J, Weber J, Böttcher S, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a specialist palliative care nurse-patient consultation followed by an interprofessional case conference for patients with non-oncological palliative care needs: results of the KOPAL trial. Ann Palliat Med. 2023;12:1175–86.

Kuckartz U, Rädiker S. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse. Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. Weinheim Basel: Beltz Juventa; 2022.

Google Scholar

Vestbo J, Hurd SS, Agustí AG, Jones PW, Vogelmeier C, Anzueto A, et al. Global strategy for the diagnosis, management, and prevention of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: GOLD executive summary. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187:347–65.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

White P, Myers M. The classification of Cardiac diagnosis. JAMA. 1921;77:1414.

Reisberg B, Ferris SH, de Leon MJ, Crook T. The global deterioration scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. Am J Psychiatry. 1982;139:1136–9.

Marx G, Mallon T, Stanze H, Zimansky M, Schneider N, Nauck F et al. Development of a patient assessment to meet the needs of patients suffering from advanced non-oncological diseases – the KOPAL study. 2022 (preprint); https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2207354/v1

Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Parks, CA: Sage; 1990.

Kvale S. Doing interviews. SAGE; 2008.

Creswell JW. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 00004 edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Pubn; 2013.

Przyborski A, Wohlrab-Sahr M. Qualitative Sozialforschung: ein Arbeitsbuch. 4., erweiterte Auflage. München: Oldenbourg Verlag; 2014.

Bajwah S, Ross JR, Wells AU, Mohammed K, Oyebode C, Birring SS, et al. Palliative care for patients with advanced fibrotic lung disease: a randomised controlled phase II and feasibility trial of a community case conference intervention. Thorax. 2015;70:830–9.

Carandang L, Goldsack JC, Sonnad SS. Key issues for elderly patients contemplating clinical trial participation. J Women Aging. 2016;28:412–7.

Halcomb E. Feasibility and sustainability of a model of multidisciplinary case conferencing in residential aged care. Fac Sci Med Health - Pap Part A. 2009;:238–43.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all interviewees for their time and willingness to participate in the study and its evaluation and all scientific experts and representatives (physicians, nurses, researchers, and patient representatives) in the advisory board for their helpful input and support.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The KOPAL study was supported by the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), grant number 01VSF18024. Funding period: 06/2019–11/2022. This funding source had no role in the design of this study and will not have any role during its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results. ( https://innovationsfonds.g-ba.de/ ). We acknowledge financial support from the Open Access Publication Fund of UKE - Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of General Practice and Primary Care, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

Nadine Janis Pohontsch, Janina Timm, Martin Scherer & Gabriella Marx

Institute for General Practice and Palliative Care, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany

Jan Weber, Stephanie Stiel & Franziska Schade

Department of Palliative Medicine, University Medical Center Goettingen, Goettingen, Germany

Franziska Schade & Friedemann Nauck

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

GM, NP, SSt, FN and MS contributed substantially to the conception of the study. MS (principal investigator), GM (coprincipal investigator), FN and SSt are applicants of the trial. GM coordinates the trial. NP, JW, FS and GM scripted the interview guide. NP and JW conducted the interviews. NP, JW and JT analyzed the interviews. NP wrote the first draft of the manuscript and coordinated co-authors feedbacks and revisions. All authors revised the draft critically and gave approval of the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine Janis Pohontsch .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

KOPAL has been approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (number PV7090) as well as the ethics committees of the University Medical Centre Goettingen, Germany (number 34/1/20Ü), the Hannover Medical School (number 8815 BO K 2019) and the University of Oldenburg (number 2019–145). The study has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants gave written informed consent to be interviewed, for the interviews to be recorded and transcribed and the data being published anonymously.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Pohontsch, N.J., Weber, J., Stiel, S. et al. Experiences of patients with advanced chronic diseases and their associates with a structured palliative care nurse visit followed by an interprofessional case conference in primary care – a deductive-inductive content analysis based on qualitative interviews (KOPAL-Study). BMC Prim. Care 25 , 323 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02572-5

Download citation

Received : 13 October 2023

Accepted : 16 August 2024

Published : 04 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-024-02572-5

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

Palliative care
Heart failure
Primary care

BMC Primary Care

ISSN: 2731-4553

General enquiries: [email protected]

IMAGES

Topic guide for qualitative interviews
Qualitative Interview: What it is & How to conduct one
Qualitative Interview Strategies
PPT
sample qualitative research interview guide
Types Interviews Qualitative Research Ppt Powerpoint Presentation

VIDEO

Qualitative interview thematic analysis Questions Answer Series 3
Qualitative Interview Themes Analysis. Sample PhD Defense Questions preparation 5
Interview Tips
Ethical Online Interview Research
Qualitative Interview Themes Analysis. Sample PhD Defense Questions preparation 4
Using qualitative methods to improve rigor in preclinical research: Manoj Lalu

COMMENTS

Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews
The style of the interview is essential for creating a noninvasive and open dialog with interviewees (Krag Jacobsen 1993). Avoid using esoteric jargon in your research interview questions and instead adopt layman's language when possible. Qualitative interviews may be more or less open or structured.
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 ...
How to Conduct a Qualitative Interview (2024 Guide)
Here's a step-by-step guide on how to conduct interviews in qualitative research, broken down into three stages: 1. Before the interview. The first step in conducting a qualitative interview is determining your research question. This will help you identify the type of participants you need to recruit. Once you have your research question ...
Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers
The Qualitative Report 2020 Volume 25, Number 9, How To Article 1, 3185-3203. Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers. Rosanne E. Roberts. Capella University, Minneapolis ...
Types of Interviews in Research
Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples. Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George. Revised on June 22, 2023. An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data. Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.
Interviews in the social sciences
Interviews in the social sciences
How To Do Qualitative Interviews For Research
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.
Qualitative Research Questions: Gain Powerful Insights
25 examples of expertly crafted qualitative research questions. It's easy enough to cover the theory of writing a qualitative research question, but sometimes it's best if you can see the process in practice. In this section, we'll list 25 examples of B2B and B2C-related qualitative questions. Let's begin with five questions.
The art of qualitative interview: A beginner's guide
Key characteristics of qualitative interviews. Open-ended format: Questions are designed in a way to encourage detailed and meaningful conversations. Interviewee focused: Emphasis on the interviewee's viewpoints and experiences. Adaptable and flexible: Encourages follow-up questions based on the responses.
Library Support for Qualitative Research
InterViews by Steinar Kvale Interviewing is an essential tool in qualitative research and this introduction to interviewing outlines both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical aspects of the process. After examining the role of the interview in the research process, Steinar Kvale considers some of the key philosophical issues relating ...
How to write qualitative research questions
Additionally, interview or survey questions are asked of participants, whereas research questions are only for the researcher to maintain a clear understanding of the research design. Research questions are used in both qualitative and quantitative research , although what makes a good research question might vary between the two.
Qualitative Interviewing
Abstract. Qualitative interviewing is a foundational method in qualitative research and is widely used in health research and the social sciences. Both qualitative semi-structured and in-depth unstructured interviews use verbal communication, mostly in face-to-face interactions, to collect data about the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of ...
Interviews for Research
The semi-structured interview is the most common form of interview in qualitative research, as it provides deep, rich data while still ensuring that all necessary topics are covered. Semi-structured interviews start with pre-determined interview questions but can lead to open-ended turns in interaction.
In-Depth Interviews in Qualitative Research
In-depth interviews are a cornerstone of qualitative research, especially in approaches like grounded theory and ethnography where understanding the nuances of personal experiences and cultural contexts is key to developing rich, grounded theories. , handling the wealth of data from these interviews is much easier, allowing you to focus on what ...
9.2 Qualitative interviews
Figure 9.2 provides an example of an interview guide that uses questions rather than topics. Figure 9.2 Interview guide displaying questions rather than topics. As you might have guessed, interview guides do not appear out of thin air. They are the result of thoughtful and careful work on the part of a researcher.
Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers
Qualitative Research, Qualitative Interview, Interview Guide, Interview Questions . Background . From this stance, the processes of phenomena of the world should be described before theorized, understood before explained, and seen as concrete qualities before abstract quantities. (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015, p. 15)
How to carry out great interviews in qualitative research
A qualitative research interview is a one-to-one data collection session between a researcher and a participant. Interviews may be carried out face-to-face, over the phone or via video call using a service like Skype or Zoom. There are three main types of qualitative research interview - structured, unstructured or semi-structured.
A Step-by-Step Guide for a Successful Qualitative Interview
Qualitative research uses in-depth interviews to gain rich non-numerical data from individuals. This data helps researchers understand concepts, opinions, and personal experiences. Interviews are an excellent method to discover the "why" behind people's preferences or behaviors, but they require a thoughtful approach.
83 Qualitative Research Questions & Examples
A qualitative research question explores a topic in-depth, aiming to better understand the subject through interviews, observations, and other non-numerical data. Qualitative research questions are open-ended, helping to uncover a target audience's opinions, beliefs, and motivations.
How to use and assess qualitative research methods
Semi-structured interviews are characterized by open-ended questions and the use of an interview guide (or topic guide/list) in which the broad areas of interest, sometimes including sub-questions, are defined . The pre-defined topics in the interview guide can be derived from the literature, previous research or a preliminary method of data ...
Probing in qualitative research interviews: Theory and practice
The semi-structured interview has become a pillar of contemporary qualitative research in the social sciences and beyond, yet the training provided in interviewing tends to be focused on question wording and rapport building rather than the dynamics of probing (e.g. Brinkmann and Kvale Citation 2018; Silverman Citation 2013). The potential ...
Sensitive, Challenging, and Difficult Topics: Experiences and Practical
[EASTER] Maternal mental health is a sensitive, but crucial topic of qualitative research. Pregnancy and motherhood are traditionally considered major milestones in a woman's life, characterised by great joy and happiness. ... Higginson I. J. (2008). Is the qualitative research interview an acceptable medium for research with palliative care ...
Qualitative Interviewing
Aiding other approaches, qualitative interviews contribute to the field's methodological means by first offering a more inductive and interpretive framework to study crime-related phenomena. From these foundations, they are replete with avenues through which to conceptualize, construct, and administer research efforts.
Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers
This article, aimed at the novice researcher, is written to address the increased need to develop research protocols or interview guides to meet the requirements set by IRBs and human subjects review committees. When data collection involves conducting qualitative interviews, the instruments include the researcher and the interview questions. The value of the data collected during a ...
Qualitative Research in Psychology
Explore, identify, and evaluate core qualitative traditions (phenomenology, narrative inquiry, constructivist grounded theory, ethnographic inquiry, and case study). Distinguish common methods (e.g., interviewing, focus groups) and analytical techniques (qualitative data analysis) used within and across core qualitative traditions. Begin ...
Wait, Where Was I? Minimizing the Chaotic Moment Through Timeline
Since the interview questions addressed sensitive topics, to maintain confidentiality participants were asked to choose a private place where they could share their deeply personal stories freely. ... Tools and typologies for the use of participant-led diagrams in qualitative research interviews. Qualitative Research, 19(5), 506-523. https ...
Unpacking complexity in addressing the contribution of trauma to women
The original topic guide was developed by three authors in response to a perceived gap in knowledge about women's health care in primary care and commissioned by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme. Data were collected through single-episode, one-to-one interviews with fully informed consent.
8 Best Qualitative Research Tools
Marketing Research Analyze in-depth interviews, focus groups, and other qualitative research. ... Through engaging formats, such as open-ended questions, the platform encourages participants to share their thoughts and experiences in greater detail. Additionally, the platform offers a powerful AI-driven analysis tool that transforms raw data ...
Experiences of patients with advanced chronic diseases and their
All interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed with deductive-inductive qualitative content analysis. Motivation for participation was driven by curiosity, the aim to please the GP or to support research, respectively to help other patients. Few interviewees pointed out to have expected positive effects for themselves.
Internationalization as Intermingling? A Qualitative Study of Chinese
Qualitative research methods such as participant observation as a mode of gathering and producing data remain marginal in educational research about international students in Anglophone countries. ... the common native language between the researcher and the interviewees. The interview questions addressed their expectations and experiences ...

Chapter 11. Interviewing

Types of Interviews

Creating an Interview Guide

Type of Questions

Background/Demographic Questions

Temporality

Question Sequence

Probes and Flexibility

The Final Question

Conducting the Interview

How Many Interviews?

Your Final Product: The Ideal Interview Transcript

Final Tips from an Interview Master

Sample: Demographic Questionnaire

Example: Interview Guide

Further Readings

How to conduct qualitative interviews (tips and best practices)

1. Before the interview

2. During the interview

3. After the interview

Free AI content analysis generator

Explain the purpose of the study

Create a comfortable environment

Build rapport

Use open-ended questions

Listen attentively

Avoid judgment

Offer breaks

1. Transcription

2. Data reduction

4. Categorization

5. Interpretation

6. Comparison

7. Triangulation

8. Synthesis

Use transcription software

Listen carefully

Use appropriate formatting

Edit for clarity

Proofread and edit

Use timestamps

Subjectivity and personal biases

Small sample size

Data quality

Socially desirable responses

Time-consuming

Should you be using a customer insights hub?

Editor’s picks

Latest articles

Qualitative Interview Questions: Guidance for Novice Researchers

Have a language expert improve your writing

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Cite this Scribbr article

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Interviews in the social sciences

Similar content being viewed by others

The fundamental importance of method to theory

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

Participatory action research

Experimentation

Research design

Study design

Data collection

Topic guide

Optimizing the interview

Ethics and reflexivity

Ethical considerations prior to interview

Box 1 Mapping potential forms of harm

Ethical considerations post-interview

Reflexivity and positionality

Box 2 Aspects to reflect on reflexively

Preparing data

Box 3 Excerpt of interview transcript (from Teeger 24 )

From data to codes

From coding to analysis and writing

Applications

How To Unleash Your Extra Income Potential With Respondent