12 Interviews

From the social scientific perspective, interviews are a method of data collection involving two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers. The researcher designs questions to elicit information from interview participants on a specific topic or set of topics. Typically, interviews involve an in-person meeting between an interviewer and an interviewee (also called a respondent). But as you’ll discover in this chapter, interviews need not be limited to two people, nor must they occur in person. This chapter will discuss interview techniques for collecting qualitative and quantitative data. Through this discussion, you’ll see that while the two types of interviews share some features, they also have important differences in the questions and research goals each is designed to address.

When to Conduct Interviews

Interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. They also have an advantage over surveys (which we’ll discuss more in Chapter 14), because they allow researchers to ask follow-up questions when a participant’s response sparks an idea for the researcher. In other words, because interviewers talk with study participants in real-time, they can ask questions to learn more about the story behind responses they might receive in a written survey. Interviews are also useful when the topic is complex, questions require lengthy explanations, or when participants may need extra time or dialogue with others to work out their answers. Interviews may be the best method if people have lots to say, or want to explain some process, related to the research topic. In sum, interview research is useful when a researcher:

• Wishes to gather very detailed information.
• Anticipates wanting to ask respondents for more information about their responses.
• Plans to ask questions that require lengthy explanations.
• Has a complex or confusing topic.
• Has a topic that involves studying processes.

Qualitative Interview Techniques

Qualitative interviews are sometimes called intensive or in-depth interviews. In these interviews, the interviewer works directly with the respondent to ask questions and record their responses. These interviews are semi-structured, meaning the researcher has a particular topic they want to hear about from the respondent. However, questions are open-ended and may not be asked in the same way or order to each respondent. In-depth interviews aim to hear what respondents think is important about the topic and to hear it in their own words. Qualitative interviews involve open-ended questions, that researchers ask without providing possible answer options. They are harder to answer because they require respondents to come up with their own words, phrases, or sentences in response. To respondents, qualitative interviews seem more like conversations than interviews. In reality, the researcher guides the conversation to ensure the respondent talks about information relevant to the topic and goals of the research project.

Interview Guides

While qualitative interviewers may not ask the same questions in the same way to every respondent, the researcher usually develops a guide in advance, that they refer to (or have memorized to use) during the interviews. This guide, also called an interview guide, contains a list of topics or questions the interviewer wants to cover during the interview. The guide is flexible and helps remind the researcher of important issues to cover with the respondent. An interview guide is similar to a daily to-do list: both contain the items you hope to check off or accomplish, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world if you didn’t accomplish everything on the list, or in the exact order in which it’s written.

While interview guides should outline issues likely to be important to the research, and the opening question may be the same across interviews, each interview flows a little differently because participants provide answers in their own words and raise points that they believe are important. For these reasons, qualitative interviews require a skilled interviewer who can ask questions, listen to responses, and pick up on cues about when to follow up, move on, or let the respondent speak without guidance or interruption.

The specific format of an interview guide might depend on the topic or the interviewer’s style, experience, and comfort level as an interviewer. Appendix B gives an example interview guide from my study of community responses to sexually violent predators. In my interviews with local residents, the guide I used included a list of topics (underlined and bolded) with some main questions and sub-questions under each topic. This guide was relatively detailed, but interview guides can be as simple as a few questions or topics written on a small notecard.

As you might have guessed, interview guides result from thoughtful and careful work on the part of a researcher. Sometimes qualitative interviewers may create two versions of the guide: one containing a brief outline of the interview, perhaps with just topic headings, and another containing detailed questions underneath each heading. In this case, the researcher might use the detailed guide to practice before conducting interviews, and bring the brief outline to the interview. Bringing an outline, instead of a very long list of detailed questions to an interview can encourage the researcher to listen to people’s responses, rather than trying to navigate an overly detailed interview guide.

Brainstorming is usually the first step to developing an interview guide. A researcher begins by listing all the topics and questions that come to mind when they think about their research question. Then, they pare down their list by removing redundant questions and topics, while grouping similar ones. They may also develop question and topic headings for the grouped categories, and consult the scholarly literature, to find out what kinds of questions other interviewers have asked in studies of similar topics.

The order of questions also matters as people need to feel comfortable talking with the interviewer before talking about sensitive or controversial issues. In the example interview guide in Appendix B, I started by asking respondents to tell me about their communities, before going into the specific details of the community’s response to the controversial placement. I also left demographic questions for the end of the interview, because I didn’t want questions with very brief answers to set the tone and conversational style for the entire interview.

Researchers try to follow a few important guidelines when developing interview guides. First, they try to avoid questions that can be answered with a simple yes or no. If they do choose to include such questions, they make sure to include follow-up questions. While an important part of in-depth interviewing is asking follow-up questions, researchers should avoid asking “why” as a follow-up question. A simple “Why?” can come off as confrontational, even if that is not how the researcher intends it. Often, people won’t know how to respond to “why,” perhaps because they don’t even know why themselves. Instead of “why” researchers may say, “Could you tell me more about that?”. This alternative question allows participants to explain themselves further, without feeling like they’re being doubted or questioned in a hostile way. Researchers also try to avoid asking leading questions. For example, rather than asking, “Don’t you think that people in your neighborhood have a strained relationship with the police?” you could ask “What comes to mind for you when you think about the police in your neighborhood?”.

Sometimes, respondents give cursory answers instead of the in-depth responses that qualitative interviewers hope for. In these cases, the interviewer can probe the respondent to elicit a more thoughtful, thorough response. A useful probing technique can be pausing and waiting without going to the next question. This may indicate that the interviewer is waiting for a more detailed response. Other techniques for eliciting more information include overt encouragement (e.g., an occasional “uh-huh”), asking for elaboration (e.g., “Can you tell me more about that?”), and reflective statements (e.g., “I’m hearing that you found the experience uncomfortable”), followed by a pause to wait for the respondent to elaborate.

These strategies for formulating and asking questions help ensure that respondents have many opportunities to share information in their own way and words. Researchers get feedback on their interview guide before they begin conducting their interviews, to ensure their interview guide allows for these opportunities. They may ask for feedback from colleagues, and even test their guide by conducting test interviews with friends or family members who may have something to say about the topic.

Documenting Data in Qualitative Interviews

After constructing the interview guide, the researcher must consider how to document participants’ answers without interrupting the conversational flow of the interview. In other words, when a researcher sits down to interview a respondent in a qualitative interview, they must have a way to record the respondent’s answers. Most qualitative interviewers make audio recordings of the interviews they conduct. Recording interviews allows the researcher to focus on interacting with the respondent, instead of being distracted by trying to take notes. Of course, not all participants feel comfortable being recorded, and the subject may be so sensitive that asking respondents for consent to record the interview would be inappropriate. In this case, the researcher must balance meticulous note-taking, exceptional questioning, and better listening skills. Managing these tasks simultaneously can be difficult and mentally exhausting for the researcher.

For these reasons, researchers (especially those new to interviewing) must practice their interviews in advance. If you decided to conduct qualitative interviews, ideally you’d find a friend or two willing to participate in a couple of trial runs with you. Even better, you’d find someone similar to the people in your sample, because they could give you the best feedback on your questions and interview demeanor.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews

As indicated in the preceding sections of this chapter, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. This method can explore topics in-depth, more than almost any other method. Participants elaborate in ways not possible with other methods, by sharing information with researchers in their own words and perspectives, rather than being asked to fit those perspectives into limited response options. Because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are useful when a researcher aims to study social processes or the “how” of various phenomena.

Of course, qualitative interview methodology has its drawbacks. As with other methods, in-depth interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors. Further, qualitative interviewing is time intensive, especially when you factor in the entire process, from creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, conducting interviews, to transcribing and coding those interviews. Interviews may also be expensive, especially when researchers offer respondents some monetary incentive or other form of appreciation for their time for participating. Conducting qualitative interviews can be emotionally taxing for the researcher, as interviewing people about their experiences may invoke stories of trauma and other events that may be difficult for respondents to tell, and for the researcher to hear.

Table 12.1 summarizes these strengths and weaknesses.

Table 12. 1 Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews

Quantitative Interview Techniques

Quantitative interviews are sometimes referred to as survey interviews because they resemble survey-style question-and-answer formats. They are also similar to qualitative interviews, as they involve direct interaction between the interviewer and the respondent. Quantitative interviews can also be called standardized interviews. The difference between surveys and standardized interviews is that with standardized interviews, the interviewer reads questions and answer options to respondents, rather than having respondents complete a survey questionnaire on their own. In contrast to qualitative interviews, the questions posed in a standardized interview tend to be closed-ended, or questions that provide a list of answer options from which the respondent must choose. While a quantitative interviewer might also ask a few open-ended questions, the coding process works somewhat differently than coding in-depth interview data.

Interview Schedules

Whereas qualitative interviewers emphasize respondents’ roles in determining how an interview progresses, quantitative interviewers aim to pose the same question-and-answer option to every respondent. This approach minimizes the interviewer effect, or possible changes in how an interviewee responds, based on how or when the interviewer presents questions and answer options. In short, consistency is the goal in quantitative interviews.

This difference between quantitative and qualitative interviews means that researchers use a more rigid document to guide quantitative interviews. In quantitative interviews, the researcher uses an interview schedule, which contains a list of questions and answer options that the researcher reads in the same way, to every respondent.

During a quantitative interview, the interviewer must follow the questionnaire script and ask questions exactly as written, rather than trying to change wording to make the question sound friendlier or more socially appealing. The interviewer should not change the order of questions, skip any question the respondent may have answered earlier, or finish the respondent’s sentences on open-ended questions.

Documenting Data in Quantitative Interviews

Researchers may audio-record quantitative interviews, but because questions tend to be closed-ended, taking notes is less disruptive than it can be during a qualitative interview. Further, because the researcher provides answer choices for the respondent to choose from, the answers may be documented right on the interview schedule or in a computer program (from which the researcher reads the questions and notes the respondent’s chosen answers). If a quantitative interview contains open-ended questions, the researcher may create audio recordings of the interviews. Researchers may also record quantitative interviews if they want to assess possible interview effects, or if they employ more than one interviewer and want to review interviews for quality-control purposes.

Quantitative interviewers are usually more concerned with gathering data from a large, representative sample than qualitative interviewers. As you might imagine, collecting data from many people via interviews can be laborious. Technological advances in telephone interviewing procedures can assist quantitative interviewers in this process. One concern about telephone interviewing is that fewer people list their telephone numbers, but random digit dialing (RDD) fixes this problem. RDD programs dial randomly generated phone numbers for researchers conducting phone interviews. This means unlisted numbers are just as likely to be included in a sample than listed numbers.

Computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) programs have also been developed to assist quantitative survey researchers. These programs select respondents randomly, using a random digit dialing technique. Then, they guide interviewers through the interview process by displaying instructions and questions on a computer screen. Interviewers can enter responses directly into the computer, and CATI programs can even record responses using voice capture technology. These programs save hours that would otherwise be spent manually entering data into an analysis program.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Interviews

Quantitative interviews offer several benefits. People tend to agree to quantitative interviews more readily than to paper questionnaires. Quantitative interviews can also help reduce respondent confusion about questions and answers on a paper questionnaire. If a respondent doesn’t understand a question or answer option on a questionnaire, they probably won’t have the opportunity to get clarification. On the other hand, in an interview, the researcher can clarify or explain any items that may be confusing.

As with every method of data collection we’ve discussed, there are drawbacks to conducting quantitative interviews. As with qualitative interviews, quantitative interviews rely on respondents accurately and honestly recalling events, opinions, thoughts, and behaviors. Perhaps the largest issue—and of most concern to quantitative researchers—is the interviewer effect. Questions on hard-copy questionnaires may create an impression based on how they are presented, but having a person ask questions introduces many additional variables that might influence a respondent. As previously mentioned, consistency is key in quantitative data collection. Unfortunately for quantitative interviewers, human beings can be inconsistent. Finally, when compared to research using paper questionnaires, interviewing respondents is much more time-consuming and expensive.

Table 12.2 summarizes these strengths and weaknesses.

Table 12. 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Interviews

Role of the Interviewer

Whether conducting qualitative or quantitative interviews, the interviewer serves a multi-faceted role in the research process. First, the interviewer must prepare for the interview by going through training on the purpose of the study, how responses will be stored and used, interview techniques, and potential sources of interviewer bias. This training usually involves practicing and timing the interview before beginning data collection.

Second, the interviewer must act as a kind of salesperson for the study, convincing unwilling or uninterested respondents to participate in an interview. Part of this process involves accommodating respondents’ schedules and preferred interview locations. For example, respondents may only be able to participate in the study at times that might be undesirable to the interviewer, such as evenings and weekends. In face-to-face interviews, respondents may ask interviewers to meet them in inconvenient locations. Plus, respondents often feed off the motivation of the interviewer. If the interviewer is disinterested or inattentive, respondents may not want to provide useful or informative responses. Thus, the interviewer must demonstrate enthusiasm about the study, communicate the importance of the research to respondents, and be attentive to respondents’ needs throughout the interview.

Third, interviewers must be able to think on their feet, and effectively address unanticipated concerns or objections made by respondents. Another aspect of the interviewer’s role is judging the quality of the information collected. For example, if the respondent’s gestures or body language indicate a respondent is lying or randomly choosing answers, the interviewer must note observations of the respondent’s demeanor for further analysis.

Summary

• Interviews involve two or more people exchanging information through a series of questions and answers.
• Interviews can be useful when a researcher wants to gather detailed information from respondents about a complex topic(that involves studying social processes), plans to ask questions requiring lengthy explanations, or anticipates wanting to ask respondents for more information about their responses.
• Qualitative interview techniques use open-ended questions to provide respondents with many opportunities to share information in their own way and wording, for an in-depth exploration of a topic. Quantitative interview techniques also involve direct interaction between interviewer and respondents, but they use a more standardized set of closed-ended questions to elicit information from respondents.
• Qualitative researchers construct interview guides by brainstorming topics and questions, curating their list of topics and questions to focus on the main goals of the research study, and ordering the questions in a way that makes sense for the interview.
• Good questions for qualitative interviews are open-ended, elicit further information in non-confrontational ways, and don’t lead respondents toward a particular answer.
• In qualitative interviews, the interviewer documents data in ways that don’t disrupt the conversational flow of the interview, such as audio recording each interview, and jotting brief notes during and after the interview. In quantitative interviews, interviewers may rely more on writing down respondents’ answers as they go or noting them in a CATI program.
• Qualitative interviews are strongest in gathering in-depth, detailed data about social processes from the perspectives of and in the words of the people being studied. Quantitative interviews usually yield higher response rates than impersonal surveys, allowing the researcher to clarify confusing questions or answer choices. Both types of interviews can be time-consuming and expensive, and qualitative interviews can be emotionally taxing. Both types of interviews also rely on respondents’ accurate and honest recall, which can be problematic.
• An interviewer must train for interviewing, act as a salesperson for the study, attend to respondents’ needs during the interview, respond to unanticipated concerns or objections, and assess the quality of the information collected.

Discussion Questions

1. Consider a topic you might wish to collect data for by conducting interviews. What makes this topic suitable for interview research? Would you choose qualitative or quantitative interviews to research the topic? Why?
2. Based on a research question you have identified through earlier exercises in this text, write a few open-ended questions you could ask during in-depth interviews on the topic. Now critique your questions. Are any of them yes/no questions? Might any of them come across to respondents as hostile? Are any of them leading?
3. Take the questions you developed in response to the previous question, and turn them into closed-ended questions. How might the information you’d gather from the open-ended version of the questions differ from what you’d gather from the closed-ended questions?
4. What part of being an interviewer would be the most challenging and rewarding, for you? Why?