Research Methods: The Interview
Lauren Gifford
March 5, 2012
As researchers, talking with people is the most basic way we learn about our
subjects and the interview is one of the most common qualitative research methods. But
an interview is more than just a conversation. Conversations are often quick, informal,
and their natural flow can easily move off course; but, done correctly, an interview can
be a complex social encounter that enriches research with experiences, feelings and
opinions than more formal questioning could never reveal (Kitchin and Tate 2000, 213).
King (1994) writes that, “the . . . danger for qualitative researchers using
interviews is that they may feel the method is so familiar and straightforward” it doesn’t
require much thought or planning. He argues that “at least as much thought needs to go
into the design and execution of a qualitative research interview as into … any other
methodology.” Kitchin and Tate (2000, 211) agree with the necessary rigor required for
successful interviewing. They write, “You should be under no illusions – the production
and analysis of qualitative data is no easier than for quantitative data.”
The discourse around interviewing as a research method is disjoined, largely
because it is lacking in agreed upon language. Kitchin and Tate note that researchers
describe interview techniques differently, using terms like “naturalistic” or “clinical,” which
often just confuses the discourse. They say that not only is this approach confusing,
many of the words are simply synonyms for others but lack relevance to human
geography or social science in general (Kitchin and Tate 2000, 211-212). Like any
methodological discourse, the discussion of interview techniques can quickly get
muddled. That said, interview style is often inherent to the researcher, but a number of
considerations are necessary before ever even meeting with a subject, including what
style of interview to conduct, what to ask, and who to interview.
Longhurst (2003) has broken interview styles down to structured, unstructured
and focus groups. Taking it further, Kitchin and Tate (2000) outline five different types of
interviews, noting that they are not mutually exclusive and researchers often incorporate
several styles at once. The difference in interview styles relates to the degree to which
the interviewer controls the conversation. Types of interviews (Kitchin and Tate 2000):
- Closed, quantitative interview: A verbal questionnaire, often used to obtain
background information, with limited choice of responses.
- Structured, open-ended interview: questions are structured and standardized but
open-ended to remove any constraint from responses.
- Interview guide approach: Topics are specified in advance but the interview is more
flexible and conversational.
- Informal conversational interview: lacks formal structure, no predetermined
questions or topics.
- Group discussion: The interviewer acts as a moderator; this type is usually used to
supplement one-on-one interviews.
Once a researcher has chosen his or her style of interview he or she must next
select participants, formulate questions, decide how to record and/or transcribe
interviews, organize the data, and finally, conduct appropriate analysis. Carefully
selecting participants, writes Longhurst (2003, 123), is a vital part of the process.
Researchers must attempt to incorporate enough interviewees so as cover all the
opinions they anticipate. While every interview is different, many researchers enter into
1
even the most informal interviews with questions on hand and start by asking something
the subject will be comfortable asking, then moving into more detailed and specific
issues. When possible, record your interviews, and write notes from the conversation
after (some scholars believe taking notes while talking is a distraction for both the
researcher and the subject, but this is contrary to common reporting techniques that
promote note-taking as a back-up to technical failures). Finally, interviews are
transcribed and used in various forms of analysis (Longhurst 2003).
As with any technique that utilizes human subjects, researchers using interviews
must be aware of the possibility of ethical dilemmas. Before conducting any form of
interview, researchers should discuss with subjects issues of confidentiality and
anonymity. While these are not always pertinent, they should be agreed upon prior to
any formal interview. Researchers must also consider how they will respond—if at all—
to potentially offensive or threatening responses. And as with any ethnographic method,
researchers need to consider the cultural context and sensitivities of the community and
subject with which they’re interacting (Kitchin and Tate 2000, Longhurst 2003).
In conclusion, the interview is more powerful than is often credited. Kitchin and
Tate write that an interview “can provide rich sources of data on people’s experiences,
opinions, aspirations and feelings” (2000, 213). Increasingly, wrote Longhurst, the
interview is being incorporated into geographical methodology because “discussions
about meaning, identity, subjectivity, politics, knowledge, power, and representation are
high on many geographers’ agendas” (2003, 128). An interview requires the rigor and
strategy of any other method, and shouldn’t be considered simply a conversation.
Works cited
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed methods
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.
King, Nigel. 1994. Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide. Ed.
Catherine Cassell, and Gillian Symon. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kitchin, Rob and Nicholas J. Tate. 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography:
Theory, Methodology and Practice. New York: Pretence Hall.
Longhurst, Robyn. 2003. Semi-structured Interviews and Focus Groups. In Key Methods
in Geography, ed. Nicholas J. Clifford and Gill Valentine, 117-132. Thousand Oaks, Ca:
Sage Publications, Inc.
2