why qualitative research is unstructured

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
• J Basic Clin Pharm
• v.5(4); September 2014-November 2014

Qualitative research method-interviewing and observation

Shazia jamshed.

Department of Pharmacy Practice, Kulliyyah of Pharmacy, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuantan Campus, Pahang, Malaysia

Buckley and Chiang define research methodology as “a strategy or architectural design by which the researcher maps out an approach to problem-finding or problem-solving.”[ 1 ] According to Crotty, research methodology is a comprehensive strategy ‘that silhouettes our choice and use of specific methods relating them to the anticipated outcomes,[ 2 ] but the choice of research methodology is based upon the type and features of the research problem.[ 3 ] According to Johnson et al . mixed method research is “a class of research where the researcher mixes or combines quantitative and qualitative research techniques, methods, approaches, theories and or language into a single study.[ 4 ] In order to have diverse opinions and views, qualitative findings need to be supplemented with quantitative results.[ 5 ] Therefore, these research methodologies are considered to be complementary to each other rather than incompatible to each other.[ 6 ]

Qualitative research methodology is considered to be suitable when the researcher or the investigator either investigates new field of study or intends to ascertain and theorize prominent issues.[ 6 , 7 ] There are many qualitative methods which are developed to have an in depth and extensive understanding of the issues by means of their textual interpretation and the most common types are interviewing and observation.[ 7 ]

Interviewing

This is the most common format of data collection in qualitative research. According to Oakley, qualitative interview is a type of framework in which the practices and standards be not only recorded, but also achieved, challenged and as well as reinforced.[ 8 ] As no research interview lacks structure[ 9 ] most of the qualitative research interviews are either semi-structured, lightly structured or in-depth.[ 9 ] Unstructured interviews are generally suggested in conducting long-term field work and allow respondents to let them express in their own ways and pace, with minimal hold on respondents’ responses.[ 10 ]

Pioneers of ethnography developed the use of unstructured interviews with local key informants that is., by collecting the data through observation and record field notes as well as to involve themselves with study participants. To be precise, unstructured interview resembles a conversation more than an interview and is always thought to be a “controlled conversation,” which is skewed towards the interests of the interviewer.[ 11 ] Non-directive interviews, form of unstructured interviews are aimed to gather in-depth information and usually do not have pre-planned set of questions.[ 11 ] Another type of the unstructured interview is the focused interview in which the interviewer is well aware of the respondent and in times of deviating away from the main issue the interviewer generally refocuses the respondent towards key subject.[ 11 ] Another type of the unstructured interview is an informal, conversational interview, based on unplanned set of questions that are generated instantaneously during the interview.[ 11 ]

In contrast, semi-structured interviews are those in-depth interviews where the respondents have to answer preset open-ended questions and thus are widely employed by different healthcare professionals in their research. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews are utilized extensively as interviewing format possibly with an individual or sometimes even with a group.[ 6 ] These types of interviews are conducted once only, with an individual or with a group and generally cover the duration of 30 min to more than an hour.[ 12 ] Semi-structured interviews are based on semi-structured interview guide, which is a schematic presentation of questions or topics and need to be explored by the interviewer.[ 12 ] To achieve optimum use of interview time, interview guides serve the useful purpose of exploring many respondents more systematically and comprehensively as well as to keep the interview focused on the desired line of action.[ 12 ] The questions in the interview guide comprise of the core question and many associated questions related to the central question, which in turn, improve further through pilot testing of the interview guide.[ 7 ] In order to have the interview data captured more effectively, recording of the interviews is considered an appropriate choice but sometimes a matter of controversy among the researcher and the respondent. Hand written notes during the interview are relatively unreliable, and the researcher might miss some key points. The recording of the interview makes it easier for the researcher to focus on the interview content and the verbal prompts and thus enables the transcriptionist to generate “verbatim transcript” of the interview.

Similarly, in focus groups, invited groups of people are interviewed in a discussion setting in the presence of the session moderator and generally these discussions last for 90 min.[ 7 ] Like every research technique having its own merits and demerits, group discussions have some intrinsic worth of expressing the opinions openly by the participants. On the contrary in these types of discussion settings, limited issues can be focused, and this may lead to the generation of fewer initiatives and suggestions about research topic.

Observation

Observation is a type of qualitative research method which not only included participant's observation, but also covered ethnography and research work in the field. In the observational research design, multiple study sites are involved. Observational data can be integrated as auxiliary or confirmatory research.[ 11 ]

Research can be visualized and perceived as painstaking methodical efforts to examine, investigate as well as restructure the realities, theories and applications. Research methods reflect the approach to tackling the research problem. Depending upon the need, research method could be either an amalgam of both qualitative and quantitative or qualitative or quantitative independently. By adopting qualitative methodology, a prospective researcher is going to fine-tune the pre-conceived notions as well as extrapolate the thought process, analyzing and estimating the issues from an in-depth perspective. This could be carried out by one-to-one interviews or as issue-directed discussions. Observational methods are, sometimes, supplemental means for corroborating research findings.

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

7.4 Qualitative Research

Learning objectives.

• List several ways in which qualitative research differs from quantitative research in psychology.
• Describe the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative research in psychology compared with quantitative research.
• Give examples of qualitative research in psychology.

What Is Qualitative Research?

This book is primarily about quantitative research . Quantitative researchers typically start with a focused research question or hypothesis, collect a small amount of data from each of a large number of individuals, describe the resulting data using statistical techniques, and draw general conclusions about some large population. Although this is by far the most common approach to conducting empirical research in psychology, there is an important alternative called qualitative research. Qualitative research originated in the disciplines of anthropology and sociology but is now used to study many psychological topics as well. Qualitative researchers generally begin with a less focused research question, collect large amounts of relatively “unfiltered” data from a relatively small number of individuals, and describe their data using nonstatistical techniques. They are usually less concerned with drawing general conclusions about human behavior than with understanding in detail the experience of their research participants.

Consider, for example, a study by researcher Per Lindqvist and his colleagues, who wanted to learn how the families of teenage suicide victims cope with their loss (Lindqvist, Johansson, & Karlsson, 2008). They did not have a specific research question or hypothesis, such as, What percentage of family members join suicide support groups? Instead, they wanted to understand the variety of reactions that families had, with a focus on what it is like from their perspectives. To do this, they interviewed the families of 10 teenage suicide victims in their homes in rural Sweden. The interviews were relatively unstructured, beginning with a general request for the families to talk about the victim and ending with an invitation to talk about anything else that they wanted to tell the interviewer. One of the most important themes that emerged from these interviews was that even as life returned to “normal,” the families continued to struggle with the question of why their loved one committed suicide. This struggle appeared to be especially difficult for families in which the suicide was most unexpected.

The Purpose of Qualitative Research

Again, this book is primarily about quantitative research in psychology. The strength of quantitative research is its ability to provide precise answers to specific research questions and to draw general conclusions about human behavior. This is how we know that people have a strong tendency to obey authority figures, for example, or that female college students are not substantially more talkative than male college students. But while quantitative research is good at providing precise answers to specific research questions, it is not nearly as good at generating novel and interesting research questions. Likewise, while quantitative research is good at drawing general conclusions about human behavior, it is not nearly as good at providing detailed descriptions of the behavior of particular groups in particular situations. And it is not very good at all at communicating what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group in a particular situation.

But the relative weaknesses of quantitative research are the relative strengths of qualitative research. Qualitative research can help researchers to generate new and interesting research questions and hypotheses. The research of Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, suggests that there may be a general relationship between how unexpected a suicide is and how consumed the family is with trying to understand why the teen committed suicide. This relationship can now be explored using quantitative research. But it is unclear whether this question would have arisen at all without the researchers sitting down with the families and listening to what they themselves wanted to say about their experience. Qualitative research can also provide rich and detailed descriptions of human behavior in the real-world contexts in which it occurs. Among qualitative researchers, this is often referred to as “thick description” (Geertz, 1973). Similarly, qualitative research can convey a sense of what it is actually like to be a member of a particular group or in a particular situation—what qualitative researchers often refer to as the “lived experience” of the research participants. Lindqvist and colleagues, for example, describe how all the families spontaneously offered to show the interviewer the victim’s bedroom or the place where the suicide occurred—revealing the importance of these physical locations to the families. It seems unlikely that a quantitative study would have discovered this.

Data Collection and Analysis in Qualitative Research

As with correlational research, data collection approaches in qualitative research are quite varied and can involve naturalistic observation, archival data, artwork, and many other things. But one of the most common approaches, especially for psychological research, is to conduct interviews . Interviews in qualitative research tend to be unstructured—consisting of a small number of general questions or prompts that allow participants to talk about what is of interest to them. The researcher can follow up by asking more detailed questions about the topics that do come up. Such interviews can be lengthy and detailed, but they are usually conducted with a relatively small sample. This was essentially the approach used by Lindqvist and colleagues in their research on the families of suicide survivors. Small groups of people who participate together in interviews focused on a particular topic or issue are often referred to as focus groups . The interaction among participants in a focus group can sometimes bring out more information than can be learned in a one-on-one interview. The use of focus groups has become a standard technique in business and industry among those who want to understand consumer tastes and preferences. The content of all focus group interviews is usually recorded and transcribed to facilitate later analyses.

Another approach to data collection in qualitative research is participant observation. In participant observation , researchers become active participants in the group or situation they are studying. The data they collect can include interviews (usually unstructured), their own notes based on their observations and interactions, documents, photographs, and other artifacts. The basic rationale for participant observation is that there may be important information that is only accessible to, or can be interpreted only by, someone who is an active participant in the group or situation. An example of participant observation comes from a study by sociologist Amy Wilkins (published in Social Psychology Quarterly ) on a college-based religious organization that emphasized how happy its members were (Wilkins, 2008). Wilkins spent 12 months attending and participating in the group’s meetings and social events, and she interviewed several group members. In her study, Wilkins identified several ways in which the group “enforced” happiness—for example, by continually talking about happiness, discouraging the expression of negative emotions, and using happiness as a way to distinguish themselves from other groups.

Data Analysis in Quantitative Research

Although quantitative and qualitative research generally differ along several important dimensions (e.g., the specificity of the research question, the type of data collected), it is the method of data analysis that distinguishes them more clearly than anything else. To illustrate this idea, imagine a team of researchers that conducts a series of unstructured interviews with recovering alcoholics to learn about the role of their religious faith in their recovery. Although this sounds like qualitative research, imagine further that once they collect the data, they code the data in terms of how often each participant mentions God (or a “higher power”), and they then use descriptive and inferential statistics to find out whether those who mention God more often are more successful in abstaining from alcohol. Now it sounds like quantitative research. In other words, the quantitative-qualitative distinction depends more on what researchers do with the data they have collected than with why or how they collected the data.

But what does qualitative data analysis look like? Just as there are many ways to collect data in qualitative research, there are many ways to analyze data. Here we focus on one general approach called grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This approach was developed within the field of sociology in the 1960s and has gradually gained popularity in psychology. Remember that in quantitative research, it is typical for the researcher to start with a theory, derive a hypothesis from that theory, and then collect data to test that specific hypothesis. In qualitative research using grounded theory, researchers start with the data and develop a theory or an interpretation that is “grounded in” those data. They do this in stages. First, they identify ideas that are repeated throughout the data. Then they organize these ideas into a smaller number of broader themes. Finally, they write a theoretical narrative —an interpretation—of the data in terms of the themes that they have identified. This theoretical narrative focuses on the subjective experience of the participants and is usually supported by many direct quotations from the participants themselves.

As an example, consider a study by researchers Laura Abrams and Laura Curran, who used the grounded theory approach to study the experience of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers (Abrams & Curran, 2009). Their data were the result of unstructured interviews with 19 participants. Table 7.1 “Themes and Repeating Ideas in a Study of Postpartum Depression Among Low-Income Mothers” shows the five broad themes the researchers identified and the more specific repeating ideas that made up each of those themes. In their research report, they provide numerous quotations from their participants, such as this one from “Destiny:”

Well, just recently my apartment was broken into and the fact that his Medicaid for some reason was cancelled so a lot of things was happening within the last two weeks all at one time. So that in itself I don’t want to say almost drove me mad but it put me in a funk.…Like I really was depressed. (p. 357)

Their theoretical narrative focused on the participants’ experience of their symptoms not as an abstract “affective disorder” but as closely tied to the daily struggle of raising children alone under often difficult circumstances.

Table 7.1 Themes and Repeating Ideas in a Study of Postpartum Depression Among Low-Income Mothers

The Quantitative-Qualitative “Debate”

Given their differences, it may come as no surprise that quantitative and qualitative research in psychology and related fields do not coexist in complete harmony. Some quantitative researchers criticize qualitative methods on the grounds that they lack objectivity, are difficult to evaluate in terms of reliability and validity, and do not allow generalization to people or situations other than those actually studied. At the same time, some qualitative researchers criticize quantitative methods on the grounds that they overlook the richness of human behavior and experience and instead answer simple questions about easily quantifiable variables.

In general, however, qualitative researchers are well aware of the issues of objectivity, reliability, validity, and generalizability. In fact, they have developed a number of frameworks for addressing these issues (which are beyond the scope of our discussion). And in general, quantitative researchers are well aware of the issue of oversimplification. They do not believe that all human behavior and experience can be adequately described in terms of a small number of variables and the statistical relationships among them. Instead, they use simplification as a strategy for uncovering general principles of human behavior.

Many researchers from both the quantitative and qualitative camps now agree that the two approaches can and should be combined into what has come to be called mixed-methods research (Todd, Nerlich, McKeown, & Clarke, 2004). (In fact, the studies by Lindqvist and colleagues and by Abrams and Curran both combined quantitative and qualitative approaches.) One approach to combining quantitative and qualitative research is to use qualitative research for hypothesis generation and quantitative research for hypothesis testing. Again, while a qualitative study might suggest that families who experience an unexpected suicide have more difficulty resolving the question of why, a well-designed quantitative study could test a hypothesis by measuring these specific variables for a large sample. A second approach to combining quantitative and qualitative research is referred to as triangulation . The idea is to use both quantitative and qualitative methods simultaneously to study the same general questions and to compare the results. If the results of the quantitative and qualitative methods converge on the same general conclusion, they reinforce and enrich each other. If the results diverge, then they suggest an interesting new question: Why do the results diverge and how can they be reconciled?

Key Takeaways

• Qualitative research is an important alternative to quantitative research in psychology. It generally involves asking broader research questions, collecting more detailed data (e.g., interviews), and using nonstatistical analyses.
• Many researchers conceptualize quantitative and qualitative research as complementary and advocate combining them. For example, qualitative research can be used to generate hypotheses and quantitative research to test them.
• Discussion: What are some ways in which a qualitative study of girls who play youth baseball would be likely to differ from a quantitative study on the same topic?

Abrams, L. S., & Curran, L. (2009). “And you’re telling me not to stress?” A grounded theory study of postpartum depression symptoms among low-income mothers. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33 , 351–362.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures . New York, NY: Basic Books.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Lindqvist, P., Johansson, L., & Karlsson, U. (2008). In the aftermath of teenage suicide: A qualitative study of the psychosocial consequences for the surviving family members. BMC Psychiatry, 8 , 26. Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/8/26 .

Todd, Z., Nerlich, B., McKeown, S., & Clarke, D. D. (2004) Mixing methods in psychology: The integration of qualitative and quantitative methods in theory and practice . London, UK: Psychology Press.

Wilkins, A. (2008). “Happier than Non-Christians”: Collective emotions and symbolic boundaries among evangelical Christians. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71 , 281–301.

Research Methods in Psychology Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

15 Unstructured and Semistructured Interviewing

Svend Brinkmann, Department of Communication & Psychology, University of Aalborg

• Published: 02 September 2020
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter gives an introduction to qualitative interviewing in its unstructured and semistructured forms. Initially, the human world is depicted as a conversational reality in which interviewing takes a central position as a research method. Interviewing is presented as a social practice that has a cultural history and that appears in a variety of formats in the 21st century. A number of distinctions are introduced, which are relevant when mapping the field of qualitative interviewing between different levels of structure, numbers of participants, media of interviewing, and interviewer styles. A more detailed exposition of semistructured lifeworld interviewing is offered because this is arguably the standard form of qualitative interviewing today.

Qualitative interviewing has today become a key method in the human and social sciences and in many other corners of the scientific landscape, from education to the health sciences. Some have even argued that interviewing has become the central resource through which the social sciences—and society—engages with the issues that concern it (Rapley, 2001 ). For as long as we know, human beings have used conversation as a central tool to obtain knowledge about others. People talk with others to learn about how they experience the world and how they think, act, feel, and develop as individuals and in groups; in recent decades, such knowledge-producing conversations have been refined and discussed as qualitative interviews. 1

This chapter gives an overview of the landscape of qualitative interviewing, with a focus on its unstructured and semistructured forms. But what are interviews as such? In a classic text, Maccoby and Maccoby defined the interview as “a face-to-face verbal exchange, in which one person, the interviewer, attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another person or persons” (Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954 , p. 449). This definition can be used as a very general starting point, but we shall soon see that different schools of qualitative interviewing have interpreted, modified, and added to such a generic characterization in many ways.

I begin this chapter by giving an introduction to the broader conversational world of human beings in which interviewing takes place. I then provide a brief history of qualitative interviewing before introducing a number of conceptual and analytical distinctions relevant for the central epistemological and theoretical questions in the field of qualitative interviewing. Particular attention is given to the complementary positions of experience-focused interviewing (phenomenological positions) and language-focused interviewing (discourse-oriented positions).

Qualitative Interviewing in a Conversational World

Human beings are conversational creatures who live a dialogical life. Humankind is, in the words of philosopher Stephen Mulhall, “a kind of enacted conversation” (Mulhall, 2007 , p. 58). From the earliest days of our lives, we are able to enter into protoconversations with caregivers in ways that involve subtle forms of turn-taking and emotional communication. The dyads in which our earliest conversations occur are known to be prior to the child’s own sense of self. We are therefore communicating, and indeed conversational, creatures before we become subjective and monological ones (Trevarthen, 1993 ).

We do learn to talk privately to ourselves and hide our emotional lives from others, but this is possible only because there was first an intersubjective communicative process with others. Our relationships with other people—and with ourselves—are thus conversational. To understand ourselves, we must use a language that was first acquired conversationally, and we try out our interpretations in dialogue with others and the world. The human self exists only within what philosopher Charles Taylor has called “webs of interlocution” (Taylor, 1989 , p. 36). Our very inquiring and interpreting selves are conversational at their core; they are constituted by the numerous relationships we have and have had with other people (Brinkmann, 2012 ).

Unsurprisingly, conversations are therefore a rich and indispensable source of knowledge about personal and social aspects of our lives. In a philosophical sense, all human research is conversational because we are linguistic creatures and language is best understood in terms of the figure of conversation (Mulhall, 2007 ). Since the late 19th century (in journalism) and the early 20th century (in the social sciences), the conversational process of knowing has been conceptualized under the name of interviewing . The term itself testifies to the dialogical and interactional nature of human life. An interview is literally an inter-view , an interchange of views between two persons (or more) conversing about a theme of mutual interest (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ). Conversation in its Latin root means “dwelling with someone” or “wandering together with.” Similarly, the root meaning of dialogue is that of talk ( logos ) that goes back and forth ( dia- ) between persons (Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995 , p. 4).

Thus conceived, the concept of conversation in the human and social sciences should be thought of in very broad terms and not just as a specific research method. Certainly, conversations in the form of interviewing have been refined into a set of techniques—to be explicated later—but they are also a mode of knowing and a fundamental ontology of persons. As philosopher Rom Harré put it, “The primary human reality is persons in conversation” (Harré, 1983 , p. 58). Cultures are constantly produced, reproduced, and revised in dialogues among their members (Mannheim & Tedlock, 1995 , p. 2). Thus conceived, our everyday lives are conversational to their core. This also goes for the cultural investigation of cultural phenomena, or what we call social science. It is fruitful to see language, culture, and human self-understanding as emergent properties of conversations rather than the other way around. Dialogues are not several monologues that are added together, but the basic, primordial form of associated human life. In the words of psychologist John Shotter, “We live our daily social lives within an ambience of conversation, discussion, argumentation, negotiation, criticism and justification; much of it to do with problems of intelligibility and the legitimation of claims to truth” (Shotter, 1993 , p. 29). The pervasiveness of the figure of conversation in human life is both a burden and a blessing for qualitative interviewers. On the one hand, it means that qualitative interviewing becomes a very significant tool with which to understand central features of our conversational world. In response to widespread critiques of qualitative research that it is too subjective, one should say—given the picture of the conversational world painted here—that qualitative interviewing is, in fact, the most objective method of inquiry when one is interested in qualitative features of human experience, talk, and interaction because qualitative interviews are uniquely capable of grasping these features and thus of being adequate to their subject matters (which is one definition of objectivity) (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ).

On the other hand, it is also a burden for qualitative interviewers that they employ conversations to study a world that is already saturated with conversation. If Mulhall ( 2007 ) is right that humankind is a kind of enacted conversation, then the process of studying humans by the use of interviewing is analogous to fish wanting to study water. Fish surely “know” what water is in a practical, embodied sense, but it can be a great challenge to see and understand the obvious, that with which we are so familiar (Brinkmann, 2012 ). In the same way, some interview researchers might think that interviewing others for research purposes is easy and simple to do because it employs a set of techniques that everyone masters by virtue of being capable of asking questions and recording the answers. This, however, is clearly an illusory simplicity, and many qualitative interviewers, even experienced ones, will recognize the frustrating experience of having conducted a large number of interviews (which is often the fun and seemingly simple part of a research project) but ending up with a huge amount of data, in the form of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of pages of transcripts, and not knowing how to transform all this material into a solid, relevant, and thought-provoking analysis. Too much time is often spent on interviewing, whereas too little time is devoted to preparing for the interviews and subsequently analyzing the empirical materials. To continue on this note, too little time is normally used to reflect on the role of interviewing as a knowledge-producing social practice in itself. Because of its closeness to everyday conversations, interviewing, in short, is often simply taken for granted.

A further burden for today’s qualitative interviewers concerns the fact that interviewees are often almost too familiar with their role in the conversation. As Atkinson and Silverman argued some years ago, we live in an interview society , where the self is continually produced in confessional settings ranging from talk shows to research interviews (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997 ). Because most of us, at least in the imagined hemisphere we call the West, are acquainted with interviews and their more or less standardized choreographies, qualitative interviews sometimes become a rather easy and regular affair, with few breaks and cracks in their conventions and norms, even though such breaks and cracks are often the most interesting aspects of conversational episodes (Roulston, 2010 ; Tanggaard, 2007 ).

On the side of interviewers, Atkinson and Silverman found that “in promoting a particular view of narratives of personal experience, researchers too often recapitulate, in an uncritical fashion, features of the contemporary interview society” in which “the interview becomes a personal confessional” (Atkinson & Silverman, 1997 , p. 305). Although the conversation in a broad sense is a human universal, qualitative interviewers often forget that the social practice of research interviewing in a narrower sense is a historically and culturally specific mode of interacting, and they too often construe face-to-face interaction as “the primordial, natural setting for communication,” as anthropologist Charles Briggs pointed out (Briggs, 2007 , p. 554).

As a consequence, the analysis of interviews is generally limited to what takes place during the concrete interaction phase with its questions and responses. In contrast to this, there is reason to believe that excellent interview research does not just communicate a number of answers to an interviewer’s questions (with the researcher’s interpretive interjections added on), but also includes an analytic focus on what Briggs called “the larger set of practices of knowledge production that makes up the research from beginning to end” (Briggs, 2007 , p. 566). Just as it is crucial in quantitative and experimental research to have an adequate understanding of the technologies of experimentation, it is similarly crucial in qualitative interviewing to understand the intricacies of this specific knowledge-producing practice, and interviewers should be particularly careful not to naturalize the form of human relationship that is a qualitative research interview and simply gloss it over as an unproblematic, direct, and universal source of knowledge. This, at least, is a basic assumption of the present chapter.

The History of Qualitative Interviewing

This takes us directly to the history of qualitative interviewing because only by tracking the history of how the current practices came to be can we fully understand their contingent natures and reflect on their roles in how we produce conversational knowledge through interviews today.

In one obvious sense, the use of conversations for knowledge-producing purposes is likely as old as human language and communication. The fact that we can pose questions to others about things that we are unknowledgeable about is a core capability of the human species. It expands our intellectual powers enormously because it enables us to share and distribute knowledge between us. Without this fundamental capability, it would be hard to imagine what human life would be like. It is furthermore a capacity that has developed into many different forms and ramifications in human societies. Already in 1924, Emory Bogardus, an early American sociologist and founder of one of the first U.S. sociology departments (at the University of Southern California), declared that interviewing “is as old as the human race” (Bogardus, 1924 , p. 456). Bogardus discussed similarities and differences between the ways that physicians, lawyers, priests, journalists, detectives, social workers, and psychiatrists conduct interviews, with a remarkable sensitivity to the details of such different conversational practices.

Ancient Roots

In a more specific sense, and more essentially related to qualitative interviewing as a scientific human enterprise, conversations were used by Thucydides in ancient Greece as he interviewed participants from the Peloponnesian Wars to write the history of the wars. At roughly the same time, Socrates famously questioned—or we might say interviewed —his fellow citizens in ancient Athens and used the dialogues to develop knowledge about perennial human questions related to justice, truth, beauty, and the virtues. In recent years, some interview scholars have sought to rehabilitate a Socratic practice of interviewing, not least as an alternative to the often long monologues of phenomenological and narrative approaches to interviewing (see Dinkins, 2005 , who unites Socrates with a hermeneutic approach to dialogical knowledge) and also in an attempt to think of interviews as practices that can create a knowledgeable citizenry and not merely chart common opinions and attitudes (Brinkmann, 2007a ). Such varieties of interviewing have come to be known as dialogic and confrontational (Roulston, 2010 , p. 26), and I will return to these later.

Psychoanalysis

If we jump to more recent times, interviewing notably entered the human sciences with the advent of Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, emerging around 1900. Freud is famous for his psychoanalytic theory of the unconscious, but it is significant that he developed this revolutionary theory (which, in many ways, changed the Western conceptions of humanity) through therapeutic conversations, or what he referred to as the talking cure . Freud conducted several hundred interviews with patients using the patients’ free associations as a conversational engine. The therapist/interviewer should display what Freud called an even-hovering attention and catch on to anything that emerged as important (Freud, 1963 ).

Freud made clear that research and treatment go hand in hand in psychoanalysis, and scholars have more recently pointed to the rich potentials of psychoanalytic conversations for qualitative interviewing today (see Kvale, 2003 ). For example, Wendy Hollway and Tony Jefferson developed a more specific notion of the interview that is based on the psychoanalytic idea of “the defended subject” (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000 ). In their eyes, interviewees “are motivated not to know certain aspects of themselves and … they produce biographical accounts which avoid such knowledge” (p. 169). This has implications for how interviewers should proceed with analysis and interpretation of the biographical statements of interviewees and is a quite different approach to interviewing compared to more humanistic forms, as we shall see.

Many human and social scientists from the first half of the 20th century were well versed in psychoanalytic theory, including those who pioneered qualitative interviewing. Jean Piaget, the famous developmental researcher, even received training as a psychoanalyst himself, but his approach to interviewing is also worth mentioning in its own right. Piaget’s ( 1930 ) theory of child development was based on his interviews with children (often his own) in natural settings, frequently in combination with different experimental tasks. He would typically let the children talk freely about the weight and size of objects or, in relation to his research on moral development, about different moral problems (Piaget, 1932/1975 ), and he noticed the manner in which their thoughts unfolded.

Jumping from psychology to industrial research, Raymond Lee, one of the few historians of interviewing, charted in detail how Piaget’s so-called clinical method of interviewing became an inspiration for Elton Mayo, who was responsible for one of the largest interview studies in history at the Hawthorne plant in Chicago in the 1920s (Lee, 2011 ). This study arose from a need to interpret the curious results of a number of practical experiments on the effects of changes in illumination on production at the plant: It seemed that work output improved when the lighting of the production rooms was increased but also when it was decreased. This instigated an interview study, with more than 21,000 workers being interviewed for more than an hour each. The study was reported by Roethlisberger and Dickson ( 1939 ), but it was Mayo who laid out the methodological procedures in the 1930s, including careful—and surprisingly contemporary—advice to interviewers that is worth quoting at length:

Give your whole attention to the person interviewed, and make it evident that you are doing so.

Listen—don’t talk.

Never argue; never give advice.

what he wants to say

what he does not want to say

what he cannot say without help

As you listen, plot out tentatively and for subsequent correction the pattern (personal) that is being set before you. To test this, from time to time summarize what has been said and present for comment (e.g., “Is this what you are telling me?”). Always do this with the greatest caution, that is, clarify in ways that do not add or distort.

Remember that everything said must be considered a personal confidence and not divulged to anyone. (Mayo, 1933 , p. 65)

Many approaches to and textbooks on interviewing still follow such guidelines, often forgetting, however, the specific historical circumstances under which this practice emerged.

Nondirective Interviewing

Not just Piaget, but also the humanistic psychologist Carl Rogers influenced Mayo and others concerned with interviewing in the first half of the 20th century. Like Freud, Rogers developed a conversational technique that was useful both in therapeutic contexts (so-called client-centered therapy) and in research interviews, which he referred to as the “non-directive method as a technique for social research” (Rogers, 1945 ). As he explained, the goal of this kind of research was to sample the respondent’s attitudes toward him- or herself: “Through the non-directive interview we have an unbiased method by which we may plumb these private thoughts and perceptions of the individual” (Rogers, 1945 , p. 282). In contrast to psychoanalysis, the respondent in client-centered research (and therapy) is a client rather than a patient, and the client is the expert (and hardly a “defended subject”). Although often framed in different terms, many contemporary interview researchers conceptualize the research interview in line with Rogers’s humanistic, nondirective approach, valorizing the respondents’ private experiences, narratives, opinions, beliefs, and attitudes.

As Lee recounted, the methods of interviewing developed at Hawthorne in the 1930s aroused interest among sociologists at the University of Chicago, who made it part of their methodological repertoire (Lee, 2011 , p. 132). Rogers moved to Chicago in 1945 and was involved in different interdisciplinary projects. The so-called Chicago school of sociology was highly influential in using and promoting a range of qualitative methods, not least ethnography, and it also spawned some of the most innovative theoretical developments in the social sciences, such as symbolic interactionism (e.g., Blumer, 1969 ).

As the Rogerian nondirective approach to interviewing gained in popularity, early critiques of this technique also emerged. In the 1950s, the famous sociologist David Riesman and his colleague, Mark Benney, criticized it for its lack of interviewer involvement (the nondirective aspects), and they warned against the tendency to use the level of “rapport” (much emphasized by interviewers inspired by therapy) in an interview to judge its qualities concerning knowledge. They thought it was a prejudice “to assume the more rapport-filled and intimate the relation, the more ‘truth’ the respondent will vouchsafe” (Riesman & Benney, 1956 , p. 10). In their eyes, rapport-filled interviews would often spill over with “the flow of legend and cliché” (p. 11), since interviewees are likely to adapt their responses to what they assume the interviewer expects (see also Lee, 2008 , for an account of Riesman’s surprisingly contemporary discussion of interviewing). Issues such as these, originally raised more than 50 years ago, continue to be pertinent and largely unresolved in today’s interview research.

Classic Studies on Authoritarianism, Sexuality, and Consumerism

The mid-20th century witnessed a number of other large interview studies that remain classics in the field and have shaped public opinion about different social issues. I mention three examples here of such influential interview studies to show the variety of themes that have been studied through interviews: on authoritarianism, sexuality, and consumerism.

After World War II, there was a pressing need to understand the roots of anti-Semitism, and The Authoritarian Personality by the well-known critical theorist Adorno and coworkers controversially traced these roots to an authoritarian upbringing (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950 ). Their study was based on interviews and employed a combination of open qualitative interviews and much more structured questionnaires to produce the data. Although important knowledge of societal value may have been produced, the study has nonetheless been criticized on ethical grounds for using therapeutic techniques to get around the defenses of the interviewees to learn about their prejudices and authoritarian personality traits (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ).

Another famous interview study from the same period was Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948 ). The research group interviewed about 6,000 men for an hour or more about their sexual behaviors, generating results that were shocking to the public. In addition to the fascinating results, the book contains many interesting reflections on interviewing, and the authors discussed in great detail how to put the interviewees at ease, assure privacy, and frame the sequencing of sensitive topics (the contributions of Adorno and Kinsey are also described in Platt, 2002 ). As Kinsey put it in the book,

The interview has become an opportunity for him [the participant] to develop his own thinking, to express to himself his disappointments and hopes, to bring into the open things that he has previously been afraid to admit to himself, to work out solutions to his difficulties. He quickly comes to realize that a full and complete confession will serve his own interests. (Kinsey et al., 1948 , p. 42)

The movie Kinsey , from 2004, starring Liam Neeson, is worth seeing from an interviewer’s point of view because it shows these early interviewers in action.

As a third example, it can be mentioned that qualitative interviewing quickly entered market research in the course of the 20th century, which is hardly surprising as a consumer society developed (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005 ). A pioneer was Ernest Dichter, whose The Strategy of Desire (1960) communicates the results of an interview study about consumer motivation for buying a car. Interestingly, Dichter described his interview technique as a “depth interview,” inspired both by psychoanalysis and by the nondirective approach of Rogers. Market and consumer research continue to be among the largest areas of qualitative interviewing in contemporary consumer society, particularly in the form of focus groups, and according to one estimate, as many as 5% of all adults in Great Britain have taken part in focus groups for marketing purposes, which lends very concrete support to the thesis that we live in an “interview society” (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2005 ).

Contemporary Conceptions of Qualitative Interviewing

Along with the different empirical studies, academics in the Western world have produced an enormous number of books on qualitative interviewing as a method, both in the form of “how to” books and in the form of more theoretical discussions. Spradley’s The Ethnographic Interview (1979) and Mishler’s Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative (1986) were two important early books, the former being full of concrete advice about how to ask questions and the latter being a thorough theoretical analysis of interviews as speech events involving a joint construction of meaning.

Also following from the postmodern philosophies of social science that emerged in the 1980s (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ; Lyotard, 1984 ), since around 2000 there has been a veritable creative explosion in the kinds of interviews offered to researchers (see Fontana & Prokos, 2007 ), many of which question both the idea of psychoanalysis as being able to dig out truths from the psyche of the interviewee and the idea that the nondirective approach to interviews can be “an unbiased method,” as Rogers had originally conceived it.

Roulston ( 2010 ) made a comprehensive list of some of the most recent postmodern varieties of interviewing and of more traditional ones (I have here shortened and adapted Roulston’s longer list):

Neopositivist conceptions of the interview are still widespread and emphasize how the conversation can be used to reveal “the true self” of the interviewee (or the essence of his or her experiences), ideally resulting in solid, trustworthy data that are only accessible through interviews if the interviewer assumes a noninterfering role.

Romantic conceptions stress that the goal of interviewing is to obtain revelations and confessions from the interviewee facilitated by intimacy and rapport. These conceptions are somewhat close to neopositivist ones, but put much more weight on the interviewer as an active and authentic midwife who assists in “giving birth” to revelations from the interviewee’s inner psyche.

Constructionist conceptions reject the romantic idea of authenticity and favor an idea of a subject that is locally produced within the situation. Thus, the focus is on the situational practice of interviewing and a distrust toward the discourse of data as permanent “nuggets” to be “mined” by the interviewer. Instead, the interviewer is often portrayed as a “traveler” together with the interviewee, with both involved in the co-construction of whatever happens in the conversation (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ).

Postmodern and transformative conceptions stage interviews as dialogic and performative events that aim to bring new kinds of people and new worlds into being (Brinkmann, 2018 ). The interview is depicted as a chance for people to get together and create new possibilities for action. Some transformative conceptions focus on potential decolonizing aspects of interviewing, seeking to subvert the colonizing tendencies that some see in standard interviewing (Smith, 1999 ). In addition, we can mention feminist (Reinharz & Chase, 2002 ) and collaborative forms of interviewing (Ellis & Berger, 2003 ) that aim to practice an engaged form of interviewing that focuses more on the researchers’ experience than on standard procedures, sometimes expressed through autoethnography, an approach that seeks to unite ethnographical and autobiographical intentions (Ellis, Adams, & Bochner, 2011 ).

It goes without saying that the overarching line of historical development laid out here, beginning in the earliest years of recorded human history and ending with postmodern, transformative, and co-constructed interviewing, is highly selective, and it could have been presented in countless other ways. I have made no attempt to divide the history of qualitative interviewing into historical phases because I believe this would betray the criss-crossing lines of inspiration from different knowledge-producing practices. Socrates as an active interviewer inspires some of today’s constructionist and postmodern interviewers (as we shall see), whereas Freud and Rogers—as clinical interviewers—in different ways became important to people who use interviewing for purposes related to marketing and the industry. Thus, it seems that the only general rule is that no approach is never completely left behind and that everything can be—and often is—recycled in new clothes. This should not surprise us, because the richness and historical variability of the human conversational world demand that researchers use different conversational means of knowledge production for different purposes.

An Example of Qualitative Interviewing

Before moving on, here I introduce an example of what a typical qualitative interview may look like, taken from my own research, to illustrate more concretely what we are talking about when we use the term qualitative interviewing.

The following excerpt is from an interview I conducted about 15 years ago. It was part of a research project in which I studied ethical dilemmas and moral reasoning in psychotherapeutic practice. The project was exploratory and sought an understanding of clinical psychologists’ own experiences of ethical problems in their work. The excerpt in Box 15.1 is meant not to represent an ideal interview, but rather to illustrate a common choreography that is inherent in much qualitative interviewing across the different varieties.

These few exchanges of questions and answers follow a certain conversational flow common in qualitative interviews. This flow can be divided into (a) question , (b) negotiation of meaning concerning the question raised and the themes addressed, (c) concrete description from the interviewee, (d) the interviewer’s interpretation of the description, and (e) coda . Then the cycle can start over with a new question, or—as in this case—further questions about the same description can be posed.

The sequence begins when I pose a question (a) that calls for a concrete description, a question that seems to make sense to the interviewee. However, she cannot immediately think of or articulate an episode, and she expresses doubt concerning the meaning of one of the central concepts of the opening question (an ethical dilemma ). This happens very often, and it can be quite difficult for interviewees (as for all of us) to describe concretely what one has experienced; we often resort to speaking in general terms (this characterizes professionals in particular, who have many general scripts at their disposal to articulate). There is some negotiation and attunement between us (b), before she decides to talk about a specific situation, but even though this is interesting and well described by the interviewee (c), she ends by returning (in what I call the coda) to a doubt about the appropriateness of the example. Before this, I summarize and rephrase her description (d), which she validates before she herself provides a kind of evaluation (e). After this, I have several follow-up questions that encourage the interviewee to tell me more about the situation before a new question is introduced, and a similar conversational cycle begins again.

The uncertainty of the interviewee about her own example around (b) illustrates the importance of assuring the interviewee that he or she is the expert concerning personal experience. The interviewer should make clear that, in general, there are no right or wrong answers or examples in qualitative interviewing and that the interviewer is interested in anything the interviewee comes up with. It is very common to find that participants are eager to be “good interviewees,” wanting to give the researcher something valuable, and this can paradoxically block the production of interesting stories and descriptions (although it did not in this case).

At the time of the interview, the interviewee was in her early 50s and had been a practicing psychologist for about 25 years. The interview was conducted in Danish, and I have translated it into English myself.

After some introductory remarks and an initial briefing, I, the interviewer (SB), go straight to a question that I had prepared in advance and ask the interviewee (IE) for a description of a concrete ethical dilemma (the numbers in square brackets refer to elements of the conversation that are addressed in the text):

sb: (1) First, I’d like to ask you to think back and describe a situation from your work as a psychologist in which you experienced an ethical dilemma … or a situation that in some way demanded special ethical considerations from you. ie: (2) Actually, I believe I experience those all the time. Well … I believe that the very fact that therapeutic work with other people demands that you keep … I don’t know if it is a dilemma—that’s what you asked about, right?—well, I don’t know if it’s a dilemma, but I think I have ethical considerations all the time. Considerations about how best to treat this human being with respect are demanded all the time … with the respect that is required, and I believe that there are many ethical considerations there. Ahm … When you work therapeutically you become very personal, get very close to another human being, and I think that is something you have to bear in mind constantly: How far are you allowed to go? How much can you enter into someone else’s universe? But that is not a dilemma, is it? sb: I guess it can be. Can you think of a concrete situation in which you faced this question about how close you can go, for example? ie: (3) Yes, I can. I just had a … a woman, whose husband has a mental disorder, or he has had a severe personality disorder, so their family life is much affected by this. And she comes to me to process this situation of hers, having two small children and a husband, and a system of treatment, which sometimes helps out and sometimes doesn’t. And it is very difficult for her to accept that someone close to her has a mental disorder or is fragile, it’s actually a long process. She is a nurse and family life has more or less been idyllic before he … before the personality disorder really emerged. So it is extremely difficult for her to accept that this family, which she had imagined would be the place for her children to grow up, is not going to be like that. It is actually going to be very, very different. And she tries to fight it all the time: “It just might be … if only … I guess it will be …” And it is never going to be any different! And there lies a dilemma, I think: How much is it going to be: “This is something you have to face, it is never going to be different!” So I have to work to make her pose the question herself: “What do you think? How long time … What are your thoughts? Do you think it will be different? What do they tell you at the psychiatric hospital? What is your experience?” And right now she is getting closer to seeing … I might fear that it ends in a divorce; I am not sure that she can cope with it. But no one can know this. I think there is a dilemma here, or some considerations about how much to push and press forward. sb: (4) Yes, the dilemma is perhaps that you—with your experience and knowledge about these matters—can see that the situation is not going to change much from its current state? ie: It certainly won’t. sb: And the question is … ie: … how much I should push, for she does actually know this intellectually. (5) We have talked about it lots of times. But emotionally she hasn’t … she doesn’t have the power to face it. One day I told her: “I don’t think you develop, I don’t think anything happens to you, before you accept emotionally that he is not going to change.” I put her on the spot and she kept evading it and so on, but it … “You don’t accept it; I can tell that you don’t accept it. You understand it intellectually, but you still hope that it passes.” I pushed her a lot then. But I don’t know if this is an ethical dilemma, I am not sure …

In this case, a key point of the study became the term ethical dilemma itself, a term that is currently a nodal point in a huge number of discourses with many meanings, and it was thus interesting to hear the respondents’ immediate understandings of the term. Their widespread uncertainty concerning the referents of the term (which was shared by the interviewer!) was not only understandable, but also conducive to developing my ideas further about (professional) ethics as something occurring in a zone of doubt rather than certainty (as otherwise stressed by some of the standard procedural approaches to ethics).

When I first set out to conduct this study, I had something like a neopositivist conception of interviewing in mind, in Roulston’s sense, believing that there were certain essential features connected to the experience of ethically difficult situations. When working further with the theme and after learning from my interviewees, I gradually grew suspicious of this idea, and I also came to appreciate a more constructionist conception of interviewing, according to which the interview situation itself—including the interviewer—plays an important role in the production of talk.

Other things to note about the example in Box 15.1 include the asymmetrical distribution of talk that can be observed between the two conversationalists: The interviewer poses rather short questions, and the interviewee gives long and elaborated answers. This is not always so (some respondents are more reluctant or simply less talkative), but this asymmetry has been highlighted as a sign of quality in the literature on qualitative interviewing (e.g., Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ). There is also quite a bit of dramatization in the interviewee’s talk in the excerpt, for example, when she uses reported speech to stage a dialogue between herself and her client, which signals that she is capable with words and a good storyteller. On the side of the interviewer, we see that no attempts are made to contradict or question the interviewee’s account, and the part of the interview quoted here thus looks quite a bit like that recommended by Mayo in the 1930s and by later nondirective interviewers: The interviewer listens a lot and does not talk much, he does not argue or give advice, and he plots out tentatively (in [d]) what the interviewee is saying, which is commented on and verified (cf., Mayo, 1933 , p. 65).

Different Forms of Qualitative Research Interviews

The semistructured, face-to-face interview in Box 15.1 is probably typical, but it merely represents one form an interview may take, and there are many other forms. Each form has certain advantages and disadvantages that researchers and recipients of research alike should be aware of. I here describe how qualitative interviews may differ in terms of structure, the number of participants in each interview, media, and interviewer styles.

It is common to draw a distinction between structured, semistructured, and unstructured interviews. This distinction, however, should be thought of as a continuum ranging from relatively structured to relatively unstructured formats. I use the word relatively because, on the one end of the continuum, as Parker ( 2005 ) argued, there really is no such thing as a completely structured interview “because people always say things that spill beyond the structure, before the interview starts and when the recorder has been turned off” (p. 53). Utterances that “spill beyond the structure” are often important and are even sometimes the key to understanding the interviewee’s answers to the structured questions. One line of criticism against standardized survey interviewing concerns the fact that meanings and interpretive frames that go beyond the predetermined structure are left out, with the risk that the researcher cannot understand what goes on in the interaction.

We might add to Parker’s ( 2005 ) argument that there is also no such thing as a completely unstructured interview because the interviewer always has an idea about what should take place in the conversation. Even some of the least structured interviews, such as life history interviews that only have one question prepared in advance (e.g., “I would like you to tell me the story of your life. Please begin as far back as you remember and include as many details as possible”), provide structure to the conversation by framing it in accordance with certain specific conversational norms rather than others. Another way to put this is to say that there are no such things as nonleading questions. All questions lead the interviewee in certain directions, but it is generally preferable to lead participants only to talk about certain themes , rather than specific opinions about these themes.

So, it is not possible to avoid structure entirely, nor would it be desirable, but it is possible to provide a structure that is flexible enough for interviewees to be able to raise questions and concerns in their own words and from their own perspectives. Anthropologist Bruno Latour argued that this is one definition of objectivity that human and social science can work with, in the sense of “allowing the object to object” (Latour, 2000 ). Latour pinpointed a problem in the human and social sciences related to the fact that, for these sciences and unlike in the natural sciences, “nothing is more difficult than to find a way to render objects able to object to the utterances that we make about them” (p. 115). He found that human beings behave too easily as if they had been mastered by the researcher’s agenda, which often results in trivial and predictable research that tells us nothing new. What should be done instead is to allow research participants to be “interested, active, disobedient, fully involved in what is said about themselves by others” (p. 116). This does not imply a total elimination of structure, but it demands careful preparation and reflection on how to involve interviewees actively, how to avoid flooding the conversation with social science categories, and how to provoke interviewees in a respectful way to bring contrasting perspectives to light (Parker, 2005 , p. 63).

Despite this caveat—that neither completely structured nor completely unstructured interviews are possible—it may still be worthwhile to distinguish between more or less structure, with semistructured interviews somewhere in the middle as the standard approach to qualitative interviewing.

Structured Interviews

Structured interviews are employed in surveys and are typically based on the same research logic as questionnaires: Standardized ways of asking questions are thought to lead to answers that can be compared across participants and possibly quantified. Interviewers are supposed to “read questions exactly as worded to every respondent and are trained never to provide information beyond what is scripted in the questionnaire” (Conrad & Schober, 2008 , p. 173). Although structured interviews are useful for some purposes, they do not take advantage of the dialogical potentials for knowledge production inherent in human conversations. They are passive recordings of people’s opinions and attitudes and often reveal more about the cultural conventions of how one should answer specific questions than about the conversational production of social life itself. I do not address these structured forms in greater detail in this chapter.

Unstructured Interviews

At the other end of the continuum lie interviews that have little preset structure. These are, for example, the life story interview seeking to highlight “the most important influences, experiences, circumstances, issues, themes, and lessons of a lifetime” (Atkinson, 2002 , p. 125). What these aspects are for an individual cannot be known in advance but emerge in the course of spending time with the interviewee, which means that the interviewer cannot prepare for a life story interview by devising several specific questions, but must instead think about how to facilitate the telling of the life story. After the opening request for a narrative, the main role of the interviewer is to remain a listener, withholding desires to interrupt and sporadically asking questions that may clarify the story. The life story interview is a variant of the more general genre of narrative interviewing about which Wengraf’s ( 2001 ) Qualitative Research Interviewing gives a particularly thorough account, focusing on biographical-narrative depth interviews. These interviews need not concern the life story as a whole, but may address other, more specific storied aspects of human lives, building on the narratological insight that humans experience and act in the world through narratives. Narratives, in this light, are a root metaphor for psychological processes (Sarbin, 1986 ). With the more focused narrative interviews, we get nearer to semistructured interviews as the middle ground between structured and unstructured interviews.

Semistructured Interviews

Interviews in the semistructured format are sometimes equated with qualitative interviewing as such (Warren, 2002 ). They are probably also the most widespread form of interviews in the human and social sciences and are sometimes the only format given attention to in textbooks on qualitative research (e.g., Flick, 2002 ). Compared to structured interviews, semistructured interviews can make better use of the knowledge-producing potentials of dialogues by allowing much more leeway for following up on whatever angles are deemed important by the interviewee; as well, the interviewer has a greater chance of becoming visible as a knowledge-producing participant in the process itself, rather than hiding behind a preset interview guide. And, compared to unstructured interviews, the interviewer has a greater say in focusing the conversation on issues that he or she deems important in relation to the research project.

One definition of the qualitative research interview (in a generic form, but tending toward the semistructured format) reads, “It is defined as an interview with the purpose of obtaining descriptions of the life world of the interviewee in order to interpret the meaning of the described phenomena” (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 , p. 6). The key words here are purpose, descriptions, lifeworld , and interpretation of meaning :

Purpose : Unlike everyday conversations with friends or family members, qualitative interviews are not conducted for their own sake; they are not a goal in themselves, but are staged and conducted to serve the researcher’s goal of producing knowledge (and there may be other, ulterior goals like obtaining a degree, furthering one’s career, or positioning oneself in the field). All sorts of motives may play a role in the staging of interviews, and good interview reports often contain a reflexive account and a discussion of both individual and social aspects of such motives (does it matter, for example, if the interviewer is a woman, perhaps identifying as a feminist, interviewing other women?). The fact that interviews are conversations conducted for a purpose, which sets the agenda, raises a number of issues having to do with power and control that are important to reflect on for epistemic as well as ethical reasons (Brinkmann, 2007b ).

Descriptions : In most interview studies, the goal is to obtain the interviewee’s descriptions rather than reflections or theorizations. In line with a widespread phenomenological perspective (explained more fully later), interviewers are normally seeking descriptions of how interviewees experience the world, its episodes, and events, rather than speculations about why they have certain experiences. Good interview questions thus invite interviewees to give descriptions, for example, “Could you please describe a situation for me in which you became angry?,” “What happened?,” “How did you experience anger?,” “How did it feel?” (of course, only one of these questions should be posed at a time), and good interviewers tend to avoid more abstract and reflective questions, such as, “What does anger mean to you?,” “If I say ‘anger,’ what do you think of then?,” and “Why do you think that you tend to feel angry?” Such questions may be productive in the conversation, but interviewers will normally defer them until more descriptive aspects have been covered.

Lifeworld : The concept of the lifeworld goes back to the founder of phenomenology, Edmund Husserl, who introduced it in 1936 in his book The Crisis of the European Sciences , to refer to the intersubjectively shared and meaningful world in which humans conduct their lives and experience significant phenomena (Husserl, 1954 ). It is a prereflective and pretheorized world in which anger, for example, is a meaningful human expression in response to having one’s rights violated (or something similar) before it is a process occurring in the neurophysiological and endocrinological systems ( before should here be taken in a logical, rather than temporal, sense). If anger did not appear to human beings as a meaningful experienced phenomenon in their lifeworld, there would be no reason to investigate it scientifically because there would, in a sense, be nothing to investigate (since anger is primarily identified as a lifeworld phenomenon). In qualitative research in general, as in qualitative interviewing in particular, there is a primacy of the lifeworld as experienced, as something prior to the scientific theories we may formulate about it. This was well expressed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, another famous phenomenologist, who built on the work of Husserl:

All my knowledge of the world, even my scientific knowledge, is gained from my own particular point of view, or from some experience of the world without which the symbols of science would be meaningless. The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced [i.e., the life world], and if we want to subject science itself to rigorous scrutiny and arrive at a precise assessment of its meaning and scope, we must begin by re-awakening the basic experiences of the world of which science is the second order expression. (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/2002 , p. ix)

Objectifying sciences give us second-order understandings of the world, but qualitative research is meant to provide a first-order understanding through concrete description. Whether interview researchers express themselves in the idiom of phenomenology or use the language of some other qualitative paradigm (discourse analysis, symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, etc.), they most often decide to use interviews to elicit descriptions of the lifeworld—or whatever term the given paradigm employs: the interaction order (to speak with Erving Goffman, an exponent of symbolic interactionism), the immortal ordinary society (to speak with Harold Garfinkel, the founder of ethnomethodology), or the set of interpretative repertoires that make something meaningful (to speak with Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell, significant discursive psychologists). 2

Interpret the meaning : Even if interviewers are generally interested in how people experience and act in the world prior to abstract theorizations, they must nonetheless often engage in interpretations of people’s experiences and actions as described in interviews. One reason for this is that lifeworld phenomena are rarely transparent and “monovocal,” but are rather “polyvocal” and sometimes even contradictory, permitting multiple readings and interpretations. Who is to say what someone’s description of anger signifies? The person having experienced the anger should be listened to, but if there is one lesson to learn from 20th-century human science (ranging from psychoanalysis to poststructuralism) it is that we, as human subjects, do not have full authority concerning how to understand our lives because we do not have—and can never have—full insight into the forces that have created us (Butler, 2005 ). We are, as Judith Butler argued, authored by what precedes and exceeds us (p. 82), even when we are considered—as in qualitative interviews—to be authors of our own utterances. The interpretation of the meanings of the phenomena described by the interviewee can favorably be built into the conversation itself (as I tried to do at Point d in the excerpt in Box 15.1 because this will at least give the interviewee a chance to object to a certain interpretation, but it is a process that goes on throughout an interview project.

In my opinion, too rarely do interview researchers allow themselves to follow the different, polyvocal, and sometimes contradictory meanings that emerge through different voices in interviewee accounts. Analysts of interviews are generally looking for the voice of the interviewee, thereby ignoring internal conflicts in narratives and descriptions. Stephen Frosh raised this concern from a discursive and psychoanalytic perspective, and he criticized the narrativist tendency among qualitative researchers to present human experience in ways that set up coherent themes that constitute integrated wholes (Frosh, 2007 ). Often, it is the case that the stories people tell are ambiguous and full of gaps, especially for people “on the margins of hegemonic discourses” (Frosh, 2007 , p. 637). Like Butler, Frosh finds that the human subject is never a whole, “is always riven with partial drives, social discourses that frame available modes of experience, ways of being that are contradictory and reflect the shifting allegiances of power as they play across the body and the mind” (p. 638). If this is so, it is important to be open to multiple interpretations of what is said and done in an interview. Fortunately, some qualitative approaches do have an eye to this and have designed ways to comprehend complexity, for example, the so-called listening guide developed by Carol Gilligan and coworkers that was designed to listen for multiple voices in interviewee accounts (for a recent version of this approach, see Sorsoli & Tolman, 2008 ).

In summary, the “meanings” that qualitative interviewers are commonly looking for are often multiple, perspectival, and contradictory and thus demand careful interpretation. And there is much controversy in the qualitative communities concerning whether meanings are essentially “there” to be articulated by the interviewee and interpreted by the interviewer (emphasized in particular by phenomenological approaches) or whether meanings are constructed locally (i.e., arise dialogically in a process that centrally involves the interviewer as co-constructor, as stressed by discursive and constructionist approaches). Regardless of one’s epistemological standpoint, it remains important for interviewers to make clear, when they design, conduct, and communicate their research, how they approach this thorny issue because this will make it much easier for readers of interview reports to understand and assess what is communicated.

I have now introduced a working definition of the relatively unstructured and semistructured qualitative research interview and emphasized four vital aspects: Such interviews are structured by the interviewer’s purpose of obtaining knowledge; they revolve around descriptions provided by the interviewee; such descriptions are commonly about lifeworld phenomena as experienced; and understanding the meaning of the descriptions involves some kind of interpretation . Although these aspects capture what is essential to a large number of qualitative interview studies now and in the past (and likely many in the future as well), it is important to stress that all these aspects can be and have been challenged in the methodological literature.

In relation to qualitative interviewing, as in qualitative research in general, there is never one correct way to understand or practice a method or a technique because everything depends on concrete circumstances and on the researcher’s intentions when conducting a particular research project. This does not mean that anything goes and that nothing is never better than something else, but it does mean that what is “better” is always relative to what one is interested in doing or knowing. The answer to the question, What is the proper definition of and approach to qualitative interviewing? must thus be, It depends on what you wish to achieve by interviewing people for research purposes! Unfortunately, too many interview researchers simply take one or another approach to interviewing for granted as the only correct one and forget to reflect on the advantages and disadvantages of their favored approach (sometimes they are not even aware that other approaches exist). These researchers thus proceed without properly theorizing their means of knowledge production.

Individual and Group Interviews

It is not only the interviewer’s agenda and research interests that structure the interaction in an interview. Unsurprisingly, the number of participants also plays an important role. As the history of interviewing testifies, the standard format of qualitative interviewing is with one person interviewing another person. This format was illustrated in the example in Box 15.1 , and although this chapter is not about group interviews, I briefly mention them to illustrate how they differ from conventional forms of qualitative interviewing.

Group Interviews

There use of group interviews is increasing. They have been in use since the 1920s but became standard practice only after the 1950s, when market researchers in particular developed what they termed focus group interviews to study consumer preferences. Today, focus groups dominate consumer research and are also often used in health, education, and evaluation research; they are in fact becoming increasingly common across many disciplines in the social sciences.

In focus groups, the interviewer is conceived as a moderator who focuses the group discussion on specific themes of interest, and she or he will often use the group dynamic instrumentally to include a number of perspectives on the give themes (Morgan, 2002 ). Often, group interviews are more dynamic and flexible in comparison with individual interviews, and they may be closer to everyday discussions. They can be used, for example, when the researcher is not so much interested in people’s descriptions of their experiences as in how participants discuss, argue, and justify their opinions and attitudes.

The standard size for a focus group is between 6 and 10 participants, led by a moderator (Chrzanowska, 2002 ). Recently, qualitative researchers have also experimented with groups of only two participants (sometimes referred to as the two-person interview , although there are three people if one counts the interviewer), mainly because it makes the research process easier to handle than with larger groups, where people will often not show up. The moderator introduces the topics for discussion and facilitates the interchange. The point is not to reach consensus about the issues discussed but to have different viewpoints articulated about an issue. Focus group interviews are well suited for exploratory studies in little-known domains or about newly emerging social phenomena because the dynamic social interaction that results may provide more spontaneous expressions than occur in individual interviews.

Individual Interviews

Individual interviews with one interviewer and one interviewee may sometimes be less lively than group interviews, but they have other advantages: First, it is often easier for the interviewer in one-on-one interviews to lead the conversation in a direction that is useful in relation to the interviewer’s research interests. Second, when studying aspects of people’s lives that are personal, sensitive, or even taboo, it is preferable to use individual interviews that allow for more confidentiality and often make it easier for the interviewer to create an atmosphere of trust and discretion. It is very doubtful, to take a rather extreme example, that Kinsey and his colleagues could have achieved the honest descriptions of sexual behaviors from their respondents had they conducted group rather than individual interviews. And there are obviously also certain themes that simply demand one person telling a story without being interrupted or gainsaid by other participants, such as in biographical research.

Although late-modern Western culture now looks on the individual, face-to-face interview as a common and natural occurrence, we should be very careful not to naturalize this particular form of human relationship, as I emphasized earlier. Briggs ( 2007 ) argued that this form of relationship implies a certain “field of communicability,” referring to a socially situated construction of communicative processes (p. 556). This construction is an artifact of cultural-historical practices and is placed within organized social fields that produce different roles, positions, relations, and forms of agency that are frequently taken for granted. There are thus certain rights, duties, and a repertoire of acts that open up when entering the field of communicability of qualitative interviewing—and others that close down. Much about this field of communicability may seem trivial—that the interviewer asks questions and the interviewee answers, that the interviewee conveys personal information that he or she would not normally tell a stranger, that the interviewee is positioned as the expert on that person’s own life, and so on—but the role of this field in the process of knowledge production is rarely addressed by interview researchers. We too seldom stop and consider the “magic” of interviewing—that a stranger is willing to tell an interviewer so many things about her life simply because the interviewer presents herself as a researcher. Rather than naturalize this practice, we should defamiliarize ourselves with it—like ethnographers visiting a strange “interview culture”—to understand and appreciate its role in scientific knowledge production.

Interviewing Using Different Media

Following from Briggs’s analysis of the communicability of interviewing, it is noteworthy that the otherwise standardized format of face-to-face interaction was named as late as the early 20th century by the sociologist Charles Horton Cooley but was since constructed as “primordial, authentic, quintessentially human, and necessary” (Briggs, 2007 , p. 553). It is sometimes forgotten that the face-to-face interview, as a kind of interaction mediated by this particular social arrangement, also has a history. Other well-known media employed in qualitative interviewing include the telephone and the Internet, and here we briefly look at differences among face-to-face, telephone, and Internet interviews.

Face-to-Face Interviews

In face-to-face interviews, people are present not only as conversing minds, but also as flesh-and-blood creatures who may laugh, cry, smile, tremble, and otherwise give away much information in terms of gestures, body language, and facial expressions. Interviewers thus have the richest source of knowledge available here, but the challenge concerns how to use it productively. In most cases, how people look and act is forgotten once the transcript is made, and the researcher carries out her analyses using the stack of transcripts rather than the embodied interaction that took place. This is a problem especially when a research assistant or someone other than the interviewer transcribes the interview because, in that case, it is not possible to note all the nonverbal signs and gestures that occurred. If possible, it is therefore preferable for the interviewer herself to transcribe the conversations, and it is optimal to do so relatively soon after the conversations are over (e.g., within a couple of days) because this guarantees better recollection of the body language, the atmosphere, and other nontranscribable features of the interaction.

Telephone Interviews

According to Shuy ( 2002 ), the telephone interview has “swept the polling and survey industry in recent years and is now the dominant approach” (p. 539). It often follows a very structured format. In a research context, the use of telephone conversations was pioneered by conversation analysts, who were able to identify a number of common conversational mechanisms (related to turn-taking, adjacency pairs such as questions–answers, etc.) from the rather constricted format that is possible over the telephone. The constricted format may in itself have been productive in throwing light on certain core features of human talk.

Shuy ( 2002 ) emphasized a number of advantages of telephone interviewing, such as reduced interviewer effects (important in structured polling interviews, for example), better interviewer uniformity, greater standardization of questions, greater cost-efficiency, increased researcher safety (p. 540), and—we might add—better opportunities for interviewing people who live far from the interviewer. In qualitative interviewing, however, it is not possible (or desirable) to avoid these “interviewer effects” because the interviewer herself is the research instrument, so only the latter couple of points are relevant in this context. However, Shuy also highlighted some advantages of in-person interviewing versus telephone interviewing, such as more accurate responses resulting from contextual naturalness, greater likelihood of self-generated answers, more symmetrical distribution of interactive power, greater effectiveness with complex issues, more thoughtful responses, and the fact that such interviews are better in relation to sensitive questions (pp. 541–544). The large majority of interviews characterized as qualitative are conducted face to face, mainly because of the advantages listed by Shuy.

Internet Interviews

Email and chat interviews are varieties of Internet interviewing, with email interviewing normally implying an asynchronous interaction in time, with the interviewer writing a question and then waiting for a response, and chat interviews being synchronous or occurring in “real time” (Mann & Stewart, 2002 ). The latter can approach a conversational format that resembles face-to-face interviews, with its quick turn-takings. When doing online ethnographies (e.g., in virtual realities on the Internet), chat interviews are important (see Markham, 2005 , on online ethnography). One advantage of email and chat interviews is that they are self-transcribing in the sense that the written text itself is the medium through which researcher and respondents express themselves, and the text is thus basically ready for analysis the minute it has been typed (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ).

Disadvantages of such interview forms are related to the demanded skills of written communication. Not everyone is sufficiently skilled at writing to be able to express him- or herself in rich and detailed ways. Most research participants are also more comfortable when talking, rather than writing, about their lives and experiences. However, as the psychiatrist Finn Skårderud ( 2003 ) pointed out, there are some exceptions, and Skårderud emphasized in particular that Internet conversations can be useful when communicating with people who have problematic relationships to their bodies (e.g., eating disorders). For such people, the physical presence of a problematic body can represent an unwanted disturbance (Skårderud, 2003 ).

In concluding on the different media of interviewing, it should be emphasized that all interviews are mediated, even if only by the spoken words and the historical arrangement of questioning through face-to-face interaction, and there is no universally correct medium that will always guarantee success. Interviewers should choose their medium according to their knowledge interests and should minimally reflect on the effects of communicating through one medium rather than another. That said, most of the themes that qualitative interviewers are interested in lend themselves more easily to face-to-face interviewing because of the trust, confidentiality, and contextual richness that this format enables.

Different Styles of Interviewing

We have now seen how interviews may differ in terms of structure, number of participants, and media. Another crucial factor is the style of interviewing, that is, the way the interviewer acts and positions herself in the conversation. In relation to this, Wengraf ( 2001 ) introduced a general distinction between “receptive” interviewer styles and assertive styles (or strategies, as he calls them), with the former being close to Carl Rogers’s model of psychotherapy and the latter being more in line with active and Socratic approaches to interviewing (both of which were addressed earlier). Here, I describe these in greater detail as two ends on a continuum.

Receptive Interviewing

According to Wengraf ( 2001 ), a receptive style empowers informants and enables them to have “a large measure of control in the way in which they answer the relatively few and relatively open questions they are asked” (p. 155). Much of what was said earlier on the historical contributions of Elton Mayo and Carl Rogers and on semistructured lifeworld interviewing addressed the receptive style in a broad sense; this is often thought of as self-evidently correct, so that no alternatives are considered. Therefore, I devote more space to articulate the somewhat more unusual assertive style, which is attracting more and more attention today.

Assertive Interviewing

Wengraf ( 2001 ) stated that an assertive style may come close to a legal interrogation and enables the interviewer “to control the responses, provoke and illuminate self-contradiction, absences, provoke self-reflexivity and development” (p. 155), perhaps approaching transformative conceptions of interviewing, to use Roulston’s ( 2010 ) terminology mentioned earlier.

A well-known and more positive exposition of the assertive style was developed by Holstein and Gubrium in their book on The Active Interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995 ). They argued that, in reality, there is not much of a choice because interviews are unavoidably interpretively active, meaning-making practices, and this would apply even when interviewers attempt a more receptive style. In this case, however, their role in meaning-making would simply be more elusive and more difficult to take into account when analyzing interview talk. A consequence of this line of argument is that it is preferable for interviewers to take their inevitable role as co-constructors of meaning into account rather than trying to downplay it.

Discourse analysts such as Potter and Wetherell ( 1987 ) also developed an active, assertive practice of interviewing. In a classic text, they described the constructive role of the interview researcher and summarized discourse analytic interviewing as follows:

First, variation in response is as important as consistency. Second, techniques, which allow diversity rather than those which eliminate it are emphasized, resulting in more informal conversational exchanges and third, interviewers are seen as active participants rather than like speaking questionnaires. (Potter & Wetherell, 1987 , p. 165)

Variation, diversity, informality, and an active interviewer are key, and the interview process, for Potter and Wetherell, is meant to lead to articulations of the “interpretative repertoires” of the interviewees, but without the interviewer investigating the legitimacy of these repertoires in the interview situation or the respondent’s ways of justifying them. This is in contrast to Socratic and other confronting variants of active interviews, which are designed not just to map participants’ understandings and beliefs, but also to study how participants justify their understandings and beliefs.

To illustrate concretely what a confrontative assertive style looks like, we turn to a simple and very short example from Plato’s The Republic , with Socrates as interviewer (discussed in Brinkmann, 2007a ). The passage very elegantly demonstrates that no moral rules are self-applying or self-interpreting but must always be understood contextually. Socrates is in a conversation with Cephalus, who believes that justice ( dikaiosune )—here “doing right”—can be stated in universal rules, such as “tell the truth” and “return borrowed items”:

“That’s fair enough, Cephalus,” I [Socrates] said. “But are we really to say that doing right consists simply and solely in truthfulness and returning anything we have borrowed? Are those not actions that can be sometimes right and sometimes wrong? For instance, if one borrowed a weapon from a friend who subsequently went out of his mind and then asked for it back, surely it would be generally agreed that one ought not to return it, and that it would not be right to do so, not to consent to tell the strict truth to a madman?” “That is true,” he [Cephalus] replied. “Well then,” I [Socrates] said, “telling the truth and returning what we have borrowed is not the definition of doing right.” (Plato, 1987 , pp. 65–66)

Here, the conversation is interrupted by Polemarchus, who disagrees with Socrates’ preliminary conclusion, and Cephalus quickly leaves to go to a sacrifice. Then Polemarchus takes Cephalus’s position as Socrates’ discussion partner and the conversation continues as if no substitution had happened.

The passage is instructive because it shows us what qualitative interviewing normally is not . Socrates violates almost every standard principle of qualitative research interviewing, and we can see that the conversation is a great contrast to my own interview excerpt in Box 15.1. Socrates talks much more than his respondent; he has not asked Cephalus to “describe a situation in which he has experienced justice” or “tell a story about doing right from his own experience” or a similar concretely descriptive question probing for “lived experience.” Instead, they are talking about the definition of an important general concept. Socrates contradicts and challenges his respondent’s view. There is no debriefing or attempt to make sure that the interaction was a pleasant experience for Cephalus, the interview is conducted in public rather than private, and the topic is not private experiences or biographical details, but justice, a theme of common human interest, at least of interest to all citizens of Athens.

Sometimes, the conversation partners in the Platonic dialogues settle on a shared definition, but more often the dialogue ends without any final, unarguable definition of the central concept (e.g., justice, virtue, love). This lack of resolution— aporia in Greek—can be interpreted as illustrating the open-ended character of our conversational reality, including the open-ended character of the discursively produced knowledge of human social and historical life. If humankind is a kind of enacted conversation, to return to my opening remarks in this chapter, the goal of social science is perhaps not to arrive at “fixed knowledge” once and for all, but to help human beings improve the quality of their conversational reality, to help them know their own society and social practices, and debate the goals and values that are important in their lives (Flyvbjerg, 2001 ).

Interviews can be intentionally assertive, active, and confronting (good examples are found in Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985 , who explicitly acknowledged a debt to Socrates), but the assertive approach can also be employed post hoc as a more analytic perspective. Consider, for example, the excerpt in Box 15.2 from a study by Shweder and Much ( 1987 ), discussed in detail by Valsiner ( 2007 , pp. 385–386). The interview is set in India and was part of a research project studying moral reasoning in a cross-cultural research design. Earlier in the interview, Babaji (the interviewee) was presented with a variant of the famous Heinz dilemma (here called the Ashok dilemma), invented by moral developmental psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg to assess people’s moral capabilities (Kohlberg, 1981 ): a man (Heinz/Ashok) has a wife who is ill and will die if he does not steal some medicine from a pharmacist (who refuses to sell the medicine at a price that the man can afford). According to Babaji’s Hinduism, stealing is not permitted, and the interview unfolds from there (see Box 15.2 ).

According to Valsiner ( 2007 ), we see in the interview how the interviewer (Richard Shweder), in a very active or assertive way, does everything he can to persuade Babaji to accept the Western framing of the dilemma and see the tension between stealing for a moral reason and stealing as an immoral act. But Babaji fails to, or refuses to, see the situation as a dilemma and first attempts to articulate other possibilities in addition to stealing/not stealing (viz. give shamanistic instructions) before finally suggesting that Ashok sell himself to raise the money. As such, the interview flow is best understood as an active and confrontational encounter between two quite different worldviews that are revealed exactly because the interviewer acts in a confronting, although not disrespectful, way. 3

Furthermore, the excerpt illustrates how cross-cultural interviewing can be quite difficult—but also extremely interesting—not least when conducted in “noninterview societies” (Ryen, 2002 , p. 337), that is, in societies where interviewing is not common or recognized as a knowledge-producing instrument. All qualitative interviewing is a collaborative accomplishment, but this becomes exceedingly visible when collaborating cross-culturally.

Analytic Approaches to Interviewing

Before closing this chapter, I will give a very brief introduction to different perspectives on how to analyze interviews. I cannot cover here the immense variety of phenomenological, discursive, conversation analytic, feminist, poststructuralist, psychoanalytic, and many other perspectives, so instead I present a simplified dichotomy that should really be thought of as a continuum. The dichotomy has already played an implicit role because it implies a distinction between interview talk as primarily descriptive (phenomenological) reports (concentrating on the what of communication) and interview talk as primarily (discursive) accounts (chiefly concerned with the how of talk). Phenomenological approaches to interviewing in a broad sense (exemplified in my exposition of semistructured lifeworld interviewing) try to get as close as possible to precise descriptions of what people have experienced, whereas other analytical approaches (found, e.g., in certain schools of discourse analysis and conversation analysis) focus on how people express themselves and give accounts occasioned by the situation in which they find themselves. The two approaches are contrasted in Table 15.1 , with what approaches on the left-hand side and how approaches on the right-hand side.

interviewer: Why doesn’t Hindu dharma permit stealing? babaji: If he steals, it is a sin—so what virtue is there in saving a life. Hindu dharma keeps man from sinning. interviewer: Why would it be a sin? Isn’t there a saying “One must jump into fire for others”? babaji: That is there in our dharma—sacrifice, but not stealing. interviewer: But if he doesn’t provide the medicine for his wife, she will die. Wouldn’t it be a sin to let her die? babaji: That’s why, according to the capacities and powers which God has given him, he should try to give her shamanistic instructions and advice. Then she can be cured. interviewer: But, that particular medicine is the only way out. babaji: There is no reason to necessarily think that that particular drug will save her life. interviewer: Let’s suppose she can only be saved by that drug, or else she will die. Won’t he face lots of difficulties if his wife dies? babaji: No. interviewer: But his family will break up. babaji: He can marry other women. interviewer: But he has no money. How can he remarry? babaji: Do you think he should steal? If he steals, he will be sent to jail. Then what’s the use of saving her life to keep the family together. She has enjoyed the days destined for her. But stealing is bad. Our sacred scriptures tell that sometimes stealing is an act of dharma. If by stealing for you I can save your life, then it is an act of dharma. But one cannot steal for his wife or his offspring or for himself. If he does that, it is simply stealing. interviewer: If I steal for myself, then it’s a sin? babaji: Yes. interviewer: But in this case I am stealing for my wife, not for me. babaji: But your wife is yours. interviewer: Doesn’t Ashok have a duty or obligation to steal the drug? babaji: He may not get the medicine by stealing. He may sell himself. He may sell himself to someone for say 500 rupees for 6 months or one year. (Shweder & Much, 1987 , p. 236)

My inspiration for slicing the cake of qualitative interviewing in this manner comes from Talmy ( 2010 ) and Rapley ( 2001 ), who build on a distinction from Clive Seale between interview data as resource and interview data as topic.

Interviews as Research Instrument

Researchers working from the former perspective (corresponding to the left-hand side of Table 15.1 ) believe that interview data can reflect the interviewees’ reality outside the interview and consequently seek to minimize the interviewer’s effects on coloring interviewees’ reports of their everyday reality. The interview becomes a research instrument in the hands of interviewers, who are supposed to act receptively and interfere as little as possible with the interviewee reporting. The validity of the interviewees’ reports becomes a prime issue when one approaches interviewing as a research instrument. And because interviews normally concern things experienced in the past, this significantly involves considerations about human memory and how to enhance the trustworthiness of human recollections.

In one of the few publications to discuss the role of memory in interviewing, Thomsen and Brinkmann ( 2009 ) recommended that interviewers take the following points into account if they want to help interviewees’ improve the reporting and description of specific memories:

Allow time for recall and assure the interviewee that this is normal.

Provide concrete cues, for example, “the last time you were talking to a physician/nurse” rather than “a communication experience.”

Use typical content categories of specific memories to derive cues (i.e., ongoing activity, location, persons, other people’s affect and own affect).

Ask for recent specific memories.

Use relevant extended timeline and landmark events as contextual cues, such as “when you were working at X ” to aid the recall of older memories.

Ask the interviewee for a free and detailed narrative of the specific memory (adapted from Thomsen & Brinkmann, 2009 ).

Following such guidelines results in interviewee descriptions that are valid (they are about what the researcher intends them to be about) and close to the lived experience of something, or what was earlier referred to as lifeworld phenomena. Although phenomenology is one typical paradigm to frame interviews analytically as research instruments, many other paradigms do so as well, for example, grounded theory, developed by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ) with the intent of developing theoretical understandings of phenomena grounded in empirical materials through meticulous coding of data.

A typical goal of qualitative analysis within a broad phenomenological perspective is to arrive at an understanding of the essential structures of conscious experience. Analysts can here apply an inductive form of analysis known as meaning condensation (Brinkmann & Kvale, 2015 ). This refers to an abridgement of the meanings articulated by the interviewees into briefer formulations. Longer utterances are condensed into shorter statements in which the main sense of what is said is rephrased in a few words. This technique rests on the idea in phenomenology that there is a certain essential structure to the way we experience things in the lifeworld, and this constitutes an experience as an experience of a given something (shame, anxiety, love, learning something new, etc.).

A specific approach to phenomenological analysis has been developed in a psychological context by Amedeo Giorgi (e.g., Giorgi & Giorgi, 2003 ). Giorgi broke the analytic process down into four steps: (a) obtain a concrete description of a phenomenon (through an interview) as lived through by someone; read the description carefully and become familiar with it to get a sense of the whole, (b) establish meaning units in the description, (c) transform each meaning unit into expressions that communicate the psychological sense of the data, and (d) based on the transformed meaning units, articulate the general structure of the experience of the phenomenon (p. 170).

A large number of books exist on how to do a concrete analysis (e.g., Silverman, 2001 ), so I will refer the reader to these sources and also to relevant chapters of this handbook.

Interviewing as a Social Practice

In contrast to those approaches that see interviewing as a research instrument designed to capture the what of what is reported as accurately as possible, others working from more constructionist, localist, and situated perspectives have much greater analytic focus on the how of interviewing. They view interviewing as a social practice, as a site for a specific kind of situated interaction, which means that interview data primarily reflect “a reality constructed by the interviewee and interviewer” (Rapley, 2001 , p. 304). The idea of obtaining valid reports that accurately reflect a reality outside the conversational situation is thus questioned, and the main challenge becomes instead how to explain the relevance of interview talk. That is, if what is said in an interview is a product of this social practice itself, why is it relevant to conduct interviewing? Postmodern interviews, emphasizing performative and transformative aspects of interviewing, attempt to meet this challenge by arguing that if interviews do not concern a reality outside themselves, they can instead be used to perform or facilitate social change.

People subscribing to the right-hand side of Table 15.1 believe that interview talk should be conceived of as accounts. Unlike reports, which refer to experiences from the interviewee’s past that can be articulated when prompted, accounts are answers that are “normatively oriented to and designed for the questions that occasion them” (Talmy, 2010 , p. 136). If interviewee talk is best understood as accounts, it must be seen as a kind of social action that has effects and does something in the situation of which it is a part. This perspective on interviewing is shared by some discourse and conversation analysts who limit themselves to analyzing interview talk as situated interaction.

Readers may wonder if these approaches are mutually exclusive. My own pragmatic answer is that they are not, but that none of the approaches should be brought to an extreme: It is true that huge problems are associated with viewing the interview as a site for pure, “unpolluted” reports of the past (we know too much about the constructive role of human memory and of how the social practice of interviewing mediates what is said to take this seriously). But it is also true that there are problems associated with denying that we can use our communicative powers to refer more or less accurately to past experiences. Those who follow the right-hand side of Table 15.1 to the extreme and deny that data can be resources for understanding experiences of the past still believe that their own communicative practice, materialized in their texts, are about matters outside this specific text. So, taken to extremes, both approaches become absurd, and I believe that it is now time for the two (sometimes opposed) camps to learn from one another and realize that they need not exclude one another. In my view, some of the most interesting interview studies are those in which analyses of the what and the how fertilize each other in productive ways. I end this chapter with a brief illustration of this, taken (rather shamelessly!) from a paper coauthored by myself (Musaeus & Brinkmann, 2011 ) that shows how an analytic look at interviews can employ perspectives from both sides at the same time. The two forms thus need not exclude each other, and some interviews can favorably be analyzed using a combination of the two broad analytic approaches.

First, I give a little contextualization to render the example meaningful: my colleague, Peter Musaeus, conducted in his home a relatively unstructured group qualitative interview with four members of a family who was receiving family therapy. We were interested in understanding the effects of the therapeutic process on the everyday life of the family. In the excerpt in Box 15.3 , we meet Maren and Søren, a married couple, and Maren’s daughter Kirstina, who was 13 years old at the time (and we also see the interviewer’s voice). 4 In the following extract, Maren (the mother) has just made a joke about the movie The Planet of the Apes (a science-fiction movie telling the story of how apes are in control of the earth and keep humans as pets or slaves), and they have talked about the scene where the apes jokingly remark that females are cute, just as long as you get rid of them before puberty.

Toward the end of this sequence, Søren, the father of the family, denies—as he does throughout the interview—that Maren is hitting her daughter, and he uses what the family calls a “stop sign” (line 17), which they were taught to employ in their therapy sessions. The verbal sign “STOP” (said in a loud voice) is supposed to bring the conflict cycle to a halt before it accelerates. In the interview, however, the stop sign (like other similar signs from therapy that have been appropriated by the family members) sometimes functions counterproductively to raise the conflict level because it is almost shouted by family members. The sudden question in line 20 is much more effective in defusing the conflict by diverting the participants’ attention from the problem.

I have just provided a glimpse of our analysis, which tries to bring forth the role of semiotic mediation—the use of signs (like the stop sign and other therapeutic tools)—in regulating social interaction in a troubled family. The point is, however, that the interview contains family members’ descriptions of their problems and challenges, thus giving us their reports of what they experience; but we also see the individuals’ shared past being formative of the present in the interview situation, resulting in quite significant accounts occasioned by the social episode itself. In short, the two analytic perspectives on interviewing (both as a resource providing reports and as a topic in its own right, i.e., a social practice providing accounts) are mutually reinforcing in this case and have given us what we (as authors of the paper) believe is a valid analysis. Rather than just hearing people describing their problems, the interviewer is in fact witnessing the family members’ problems as they play out in their interaction, in front of him, so to speak, thus offering him a chance to validate his analysis. The what and the how here intersect very closely.

Maren: And the comment that followed was: “Get rid of it before … ha, ha =”

Interviewer: Before it becomes a teenager?

Maren: Because it simply is so hard.

Interviewer: Yes, right, but it =

Kirstina: Should you also simply get rid of me?

Interviewer: Ha, ha.

Maren: No, are you crazy, I love you more than anything. But it’s really hard

for all of us sometimes, I think.

Kirstina: Are you also in puberty when you hit me?

Maren: No, I am in the menopause, that is different.

Søren: You don’t hit, do you? You say “when you hit”? Your mother doesn’t

Kirstina: She has hit me today and yesterday.

Maren: I probably did hit her but well =

Kirstina: Yes, but still, you may say that it isn’t hitting, when you miss.

Søren: STOP Kirstina, it isn’t true. Your mother hasn’t hit you and you don’t

Kirstina: No, no let’s just say that.

Maren: Does anyone want a cream roll? (adapted from Musaeus & Brinkmann, 2011 , p. 53)

In this chapter, I presented a broad introduction to qualitative interviewing. I have tried to demonstrate that the human world is a conversational reality in which interviewing takes a privileged position as a research method, at least in relation to a number of significant research questions that human and social scientists want to ask. Qualitative interviewing can be both a useful and a valid approach, resulting in analyses with a certain objectivity in the sense that I introduced earlier. Throughout the chapter, I maintained a focus on interviewing as a social practice that has a cultural history, and I warned against unreflective naturalization of this kind of human interaction (i.e., viewing it as a particularly natural and unproblematic way of staging human relationships).

Furthermore, I introduced a number of distinctions that are relevant when mapping the field of qualitative interviewing (e.g., between different levels of structure, numbers of participants, media of interviewing, and interviewer styles). I also provided a detailed presentation of semistructured lifeworld interviewing as the standard form of qualitative interviewing today.

I finally gave particular attention to two broad analytic approaches to interviewing: on the one side, experience-focused interviewing that seeks to elicit accurate reports of what interviewees have experienced (in broad terms, the phenomenological positions), and, on the other side, language- and interaction-focused interviewing (discourse-oriented positions) that focus on the nature of interview interaction in its own right. In my eyes, none of these is superior per se, but each enables researchers to pose different kinds of questions to their materials. Too often, however, interviewers forget to make clear what kinds of questions they are interested in and forget to consider whether their practice of interviewing and their analytic focus enable them to answer their research questions satisfactorily.

Future Directions

In the future, the field of qualitative interviewing is likely to continue its expansion. It is now among the most popular research tools in the human and social sciences, and nothing indicates that this trend will stop. However, several issues confront qualitative interviewing as particularly pressing in my opinion:

Using conversations for research purposes is close to an everyday practice of oral communication. We talk to people to get to know them, which—in a trivial sense—is also the goal of qualitative research. Will the focus on interviewing as a “method” (that can be articulated and perhaps spelled out procedurally) be counterproductive when the goal is human communication and getting to know people? Are we witnessing a fetishization of methods in qualitative research that is blocking the road to knowledge? And are there other ways of thinking about interviews and other qualitative methods than in the idiom of methods?

Qualitative interviewers can now find publication channels for their work, but has the practice of interviewing become so unproblematic that people are forgetting to justify and theorize their means of knowledge production in concrete contexts? In my view, more work should be done to theorize interviewing as a social practice (the how) as essential to what goes on in interview interactions.

When reporting qualitative analyses, researchers too often decontextualize interviewee statements and utterances. What Person A has said is juxtaposed with the statements of Person B, without any contextual clues. If an interview is a form of situated interaction, then readers of interview reports must be provided with temporal and situational context to be able to interpret the talk (What question was this statement an answer to? What happened before and what came after?).

Some qualitative researchers remain convinced that they are “on the good side” in relation to ethical questions. They “give voice” to individuals, listen to their “subjective accounts,” and are thus against the quantitative and “objectifying” approaches of other, more traditional researchers. However, qualitative interviewers should, in my view, be aware that very delicate ethical questions are an inherent part of interviewing. They should avoid the “qualitative ethicism” that sometimes characterizes qualitative inquiry, viz. that “we are good because we are qualitative.” Especially in an “interview society,” there is a need to think about the ethical problems of interviewing others (often about intimate and personal matters), when people are often seduced by the warmth and interest of interviewers to say “too much.”

The first journalistic interviews appeared in the middle of the 19th century (Silvester, 1993 ), and social science interviews emerged in the course of the 20th century (see the history of interviewing recounted later in this chapter).

These traditions are not identical, nor are their main concepts, but I believe that they here converge on the idea of a concretely lived and experienced social reality prior to scientific abstractions of it, which Husserl originally referred to as the lifeworld and which remains central to most (if not all) paradigms in qualitative research.

Confronting interviews are sometimes misunderstood to imply a certain aggressive or disrespectful attitude, which, of course, is a misunderstanding. An interviewer can be actively and confrontingly curious and inquiring in a very respectful way, especially if she positions herself as not knowing (ad modum Socrates in some of the dialogues) to avoid framing the interview as an oral examination.

Kirstina has an older sister, who no longer lives at home, and Søren is not the biological father of the girls. He has two children from a previous marriage. One of them has attempted suicide, which, however, is not the reason for the family’s referral to therapy. The reason, instead, is Maren’s violent behavior toward her daughter Kirstina.

Adorno, T. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik, E. , Levinson, D. J. , & Sanford, R. N. ( 1950 ). The authoritarian personality . New York, NY: Norton.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Atkinson, P. ( 2002 ). The life story interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Atkinson, P. , & Silverman, D. ( 1997 ). Kundera’s immortality: The interview society and the invention of the self.   Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 304–325.

Bellah, R. N. , Madsen, R. , Sullivan, W. M. , Swidler, A. , & Tipton, S. M. ( 1985 ). Habits of the heart: Individualism and commitment in American life . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Blumer, H. ( 1969 ). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bogardus, E. M. ( 1924 ). Methods of interviewing.   Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 456–467.

Briggs, C. ( 2007 ). Anthropology, interviewing and communicability in contemporary society.   Current Anthropology, 48, 551–567.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2007 a). Could interviews be epistemic? An alternative to qualitative opinion-polling.   Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 1116–1138.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2007 b). The good qualitative researcher.   Qualitative Research in Psychology, 4, 127–144.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2012 ). Qualitative inquiry in everyday life: Working with everyday life materials . London, England: Sage.

Brinkmann, S. ( 2018 ). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 576–599). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brinkmann, S. , & Kvale, S. ( 2005 ). Confronting the ethics of qualitative research.   Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 18, 157–181.

Brinkmann, S. , & Kvale, S. ( 2015 ). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Butler, J. ( 2005 ). Giving an account of oneself . New York, NY: Fordham University Press.

Chrzanowska, J. ( 2002 ). Interviewing groups and individuals in qualitative market research . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. ( 1986 ). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Conrad, R. G. , & Schober, M. ( 2008 ). New frontiers in standardized survey interviewing. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 173–188). London, England: Guilford Press.

Dichter, E. ( 1960 ). The strategy of desire . Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Dinkins, C. S. ( 2005 ). Shared inquiry: Socratic–Hermeneutic interpre-viewing. In P. Ironside (Ed.), Beyond method: Philosophical conversations in healthcare research and scholarship . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ellis, C. , Adams, T. E. , & Bochner, A. P. ( 2011 ). Autoethnography: An overview.   Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12, Art. 10. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/viewArticle/1589/3095

Ellis, C. , & Berger, L. ( 2003 ). Their story/my story/our story: Including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In J. A. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Inside interviewing: New lenses, new concerns (pp. 467–493). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Flick, U. ( 2002 ). An introduction to qualitative research (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Flyvbjerg, B. ( 2001 ). Making social science matter—Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Fontana, A. , & Prokos, A. H. ( 2007 ). The interview: From formal to postmodern . Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Freud, S. ( 1963 ). Therapy and technique . New York, NY: Collier.

Frosh, S. ( 2007 ). Disintegrating qualitative research.   Theory & Psychology, 17, 635–653.

Giorgi, A. , & Giorgi, B. ( 2003 ). The descriptive phenomenological psychological method. In P. M. Camic , J. E. Rhodes , & L. Yardley (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 243–273). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Glaser, B. G. , & Strauss, A. ( 1967 ). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . New York, NY: Aldine.

Harré, R. ( 1983 ). Personal being . Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Hollway, W. , & Jefferson, T. ( 2000 ). Biography, anxiety and the experience of locality. In P. Chamberlayne , J. Bornat , & T. Wengraf (Eds.), The turn to biographical methods in social science (pp. 167–180). London, England: Routledge.

Holstein, J. A. , & Gubrium, J. F. ( 1995 ). The active interview . London, England: Sage.

Husserl, E. ( 1954 ). Die krisis der europäischen wissenschaften und die tranzendentale phänomenologie . Haag, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kinsey, A. C. , Pomeroy, W. B. , & Martin, C. E. ( 1948 ). Sexual behavior in the human male . Philadelphia, PA: Saunders.

Kohlberg, L. ( 1981 ). Essays on moral development: Vol. 1, The philosophy of moral development . San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Kvale, S. ( 2003 ). The psychoanalytical interview as inspiration for qualitative research. In P. M. Camic & J. E. Rhodes (Eds.), Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design (pp. 275–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Latour, B. ( 2000 ). When things strike back: A possible contribution of “science studies” to the social sciences.   British Journal of Sociology, 50, 107–123.

Lee, R. M. ( 2008 ). David Riesman and the sociology of the interview.   The Sociological Quarterly, 49, 285–307.

Lee, R. M. ( 2011 ). “ The most important technique …”: Carl Rogers, Hawthorne, and the rise and fall of nondirective interviewing in sociology.   Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 47, 123–146.

Lyotard, J.-F. ( 1984 ). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge . Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. , & Maccoby, N. ( 1954 ). The interview: A tool of social science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 449–487). Cambridge, MA: Addison–Wesley.

Mann, C. , & Stewart, F. ( 2002 ). Internet interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 603–628). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mannheim, B. , & Tedlock, B. ( 1995 ). Introduction. In B. Tedlock & B. Mannheim (Eds.), The dialogic emergence of culture (pp. 1–32). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Markham, A. ( 2005 ). The methods, politics, and ethics of representation in online ethnography. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 247–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayo, E. ( 1933 ). The social problems of an industrial civilization . New York, NY: MacMillan.

Merleau-Ponty, M. ( 1945 /2002). Phenomenology of perception . London, England: Routledge.

Mishler, E. ( 1986 ). Research interviewing—Context and narrative . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Morgan, D. L. ( 2002 ). Focus group interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 141–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mulhall, S. ( 2007 ). The conversation of humanity . Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Musaeus, P. , & Brinkmann, S. ( 2011 ). The semiosis of family conflict: A case study of home-based psychotherapy.   Culture & Psychology, 17, 47–63.

Parker, I. ( 2005 ). Qualitative psychology: Introducing radical research . Buckingham, England: Open University Press.

Piaget, J. ( 1930 ). The child’s conception of the world . New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Piaget, J. ( 1932 /1975). The moral judgment of the child . London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Plato. ( 1987 ). The republic . London, England: Penguin.

Platt, J. ( 2002 ). The history of the interview. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp. 33–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Potter, J. , & Wetherell, M. ( 1987 ). Discourse and social psychology . London, England: Sage.

Rapley, T. J. ( 2001 ). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Some considerations on analysing interviews.   Qualitative Research, 1, 303–323.

Reinharz, S. , & Chase, S. E. ( 2002 ). Interviewing women. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 221–238). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Riesman, D. M. , & Benney, M. ( 1956 ). The sociology of the interview.   Midwestern Sociologist, 18, 3–15.

Roethlishberger, F. J. , & Dickson, W. J. ( 1939 ). Management and the worker . New York, NY: Wiley.

Rogers, C. ( 1945 ). The non-directive method as a technique for social research.   The American Journal of Sociology, 50, 279–283.

Roulston, K. ( 2010 ). Reflective interviewing: A guide to theory and practice . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ryen, A. ( 2002 ). Cross-cultural interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 335–354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sarbin, T. R. ( 1986 ). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In T. R. Sarbin (Ed.), Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (pp. 3–21). New York, NY: Praeger.

Shotter, J. ( 1993 ). Conversational realities: Constructing life through language . London, England: Sage.

Shuy, R. W. ( 2002 ). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 537–555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shweder, R. A. , & Much, N. ( 1987 ). Determinations of meaning: Discourse and moral socialization. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moral development through social interaction . New York, NY: Wiley.

Silverman, D. ( 2001 ). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Silvester, E. ( 1993 ). The Penguin book of interviews . London, England: Penguin.

Skårderud, F. ( 2003 ). Sh@me in cyberspace. Relationships without faces: The e-media and eating disorders.   European Eating Disorders Review, 11, 155–169.

Smith, L. T. ( 1999 ). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous people . London, England: Zed Books.

Sorsoli, L. , & Tolman, D. L. ( 2008 ). Hearing voices: Listening for multiplicity and movement in interview data. In S. N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 495–515). London, England: Guilford Press.

Spradley, J. ( 1979 ). The ethnographic interview . New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Talmy, S. ( 2010 ). Qualitative interviews in applied linguistics: From research instrument to social practice.   Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 30, 128–148.

Tanggaard, L. ( 2007 ). The research interview as discourses crossing swords.   Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 160–176.

Taylor, C. ( 1989 ). Sources of the self . Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Thomsen, D. K. , & Brinkmann, S. ( 2009 ). An interviewer’s guide to autobiographical memory: Ways to elicit concrete experiences and to avoid pitfalls in interpreting them.   Qualitative Research in Psychology, 6, 294–312.

Trevarthen, C. ( 1993 ). The self born in intersubjectivity: The psychology of an infant communicating. In U. Neisser (Ed.), The perceived self (pp. 121–173). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Valsiner, J. ( 2007 ). Culture in minds and societies: Foundations of cultural psychology . New Delhi, India: Sage.

Warren, C. A. B. ( 2002 ). Qualitative interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 83–101). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wengraf, T. ( 2001 ). Qualitative research interviewing . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

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

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

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

• P. Gill 1 &
• J. Baillie 2  

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

27k Accesses

48 Citations

20 Altmetric

Metrics details

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

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

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

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

You have full access to this article via your institution.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Interviews in the social sciences

A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis of the physical and mental health benefits of touch interventions

Introduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overview of qualitative research

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

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

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

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

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

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

Types of interview

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

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

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

Conducting an interview

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

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

Greeting and explaining the project/interview

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

Asymmetry between the researcher and participant talking

Expressing interest and cultural ignorance

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

Creating hypothetical situations

Asking friendly questions

Knowing when to leave.

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

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

Box 1: Example of a topic guide

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

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

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

Why did you start cleaning their teeth at that point?

How often do you brush their teeth?

What do you use to brush their teeth and why?

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

Do you find anything difficult?

What makes cleaning their teeth easier for you?

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

Has it become easier or harder?

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

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

What do they enjoy about having their teeth cleaned?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focus groups

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

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

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

Focus group considerations

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

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

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

Focus group management

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

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

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

Discussions within the group are confidential to the group

Only one person can speak at a time

All participants should have sufficient opportunity to contribute

There should be no unnecessary interruptions while someone is speaking

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

Challenging contrary opinions is appropriate, but ridiculing is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Google Scholar  

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

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

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

Chapter   Google Scholar  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

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

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

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Gill .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

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

Download citation

Accepted : 02 July 2018

Published : 05 October 2018

Issue Date : 12 October 2018

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

Share this article

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

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

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

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

• Olukorede Adewole

International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility (2024)

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

• Abimbola M. Oladayo
• Oluwakemi Odukoya
• Azeez Butali

BMC Public Health (2024)

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

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

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth (2024)

‘Baby mamas’ in Urban Ghana: an exploratory qualitative study on the factors influencing serial fathering among men in Accra, Ghana

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

Reproductive Health (2023)

Revolutionising dental technologies: a qualitative study on dental technicians’ perceptions of Artificial intelligence integration

• Galvin Sim Siang Lin
• Yook Shiang Ng
• Kah Hoay Chua

BMC Oral Health (2023)

Quick links

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

What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research

• Open access
• Published: 27 February 2019
• Volume 42 , pages 139–160, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Patrik Aspers 1 , 2 &
• Ugo Corte 3  

598k Accesses

286 Citations

24 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

What is qualitative research? If we look for a precise definition of qualitative research, and specifically for one that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature is meager. In this article we systematically search, identify and analyze a sample of 89 sources using or attempting to define the term “qualitative.” Then, drawing on ideas we find scattered across existing work, and based on Becker’s classic study of marijuana consumption, we formulate and illustrate a definition that tries to capture its core elements. We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. This formulation is developed as a tool to help improve research designs while stressing that a qualitative dimension is present in quantitative work as well. Additionally, it can facilitate teaching, communication between researchers, diminish the gap between qualitative and quantitative researchers, help to address critiques of qualitative methods, and be used as a standard of evaluation of qualitative research.

Similar content being viewed by others

What is Qualitative in Research

Unsettling definitions of qualitative research, what is “qualitative” in qualitative research why the answer does not matter but the question is important.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

If we assume that there is something called qualitative research, what exactly is this qualitative feature? And how could we evaluate qualitative research as good or not? Is it fundamentally different from quantitative research? In practice, most active qualitative researchers working with empirical material intuitively know what is involved in doing qualitative research, yet perhaps surprisingly, a clear definition addressing its key feature is still missing.

To address the question of what is qualitative we turn to the accounts of “qualitative research” in textbooks and also in empirical work. In his classic, explorative, interview study of deviance Howard Becker ( 1963 ) asks ‘How does one become a marijuana user?’ In contrast to pre-dispositional and psychological-individualistic theories of deviant behavior, Becker’s inherently social explanation contends that becoming a user of this substance is the result of a three-phase sequential learning process. First, potential users need to learn how to smoke it properly to produce the “correct” effects. If not, they are likely to stop experimenting with it. Second, they need to discover the effects associated with it; in other words, to get “high,” individuals not only have to experience what the drug does, but also to become aware that those sensations are related to using it. Third, they require learning to savor the feelings related to its consumption – to develop an acquired taste. Becker, who played music himself, gets close to the phenomenon by observing, taking part, and by talking to people consuming the drug: “half of the fifty interviews were conducted with musicians, the other half covered a wide range of people, including laborers, machinists, and people in the professions” (Becker 1963 :56).

Another central aspect derived through the common-to-all-research interplay between induction and deduction (Becker 2017 ), is that during the course of his research Becker adds scientifically meaningful new distinctions in the form of three phases—distinctions, or findings if you will, that strongly affect the course of his research: its focus, the material that he collects, and which eventually impact his findings. Each phase typically unfolds through social interaction, and often with input from experienced users in “a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a conception of the meaning of the behavior, and perceptions and judgments of objects and situations, all of which make the activity possible and desirable” (Becker 1963 :235). In this study the increased understanding of smoking dope is a result of a combination of the meaning of the actors, and the conceptual distinctions that Becker introduces based on the views expressed by his respondents. Understanding is the result of research and is due to an iterative process in which data, concepts and evidence are connected with one another (Becker 2017 ).

Indeed, there are many definitions of qualitative research, but if we look for a definition that addresses its distinctive feature of being “qualitative,” the literature across the broad field of social science is meager. The main reason behind this article lies in the paradox, which, to put it bluntly, is that researchers act as if they know what it is, but they cannot formulate a coherent definition. Sociologists and others will of course continue to conduct good studies that show the relevance and value of qualitative research addressing scientific and practical problems in society. However, our paper is grounded in the idea that providing a clear definition will help us improve the work that we do. Among researchers who practice qualitative research there is clearly much knowledge. We suggest that a definition makes this knowledge more explicit. If the first rationale for writing this paper refers to the “internal” aim of improving qualitative research, the second refers to the increased “external” pressure that especially many qualitative researchers feel; pressure that comes both from society as well as from other scientific approaches. There is a strong core in qualitative research, and leading researchers tend to agree on what it is and how it is done. Our critique is not directed at the practice of qualitative research, but we do claim that the type of systematic work we do has not yet been done, and that it is useful to improve the field and its status in relation to quantitative research.

The literature on the “internal” aim of improving, or at least clarifying qualitative research is large, and we do not claim to be the first to notice the vagueness of the term “qualitative” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 ). Also, others have noted that there is no single definition of it (Long and Godfrey 2004 :182), that there are many different views on qualitative research (Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11; Jovanović 2011 :3), and that more generally, we need to define its meaning (Best 2004 :54). Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ), for example, as well as Nelson et al. (1992:2 cited in Denzin and Lincoln 2003 :11), and Flick ( 2007 :ix–x), have recognized that the term is problematic: “Actually, the term ‘qualitative research’ is confusing because it can mean different things to different people” (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :10–11). Hammersley has discussed the possibility of addressing the problem, but states that “the task of providing an account of the distinctive features of qualitative research is far from straightforward” ( 2013 :2). This confusion, as he has recently further argued (Hammersley 2018 ), is also salient in relation to ethnography where different philosophical and methodological approaches lead to a lack of agreement about what it means.

Others (e.g. Hammersley 2018 ; Fine and Hancock 2017 ) have also identified the treat to qualitative research that comes from external forces, seen from the point of view of “qualitative research.” This threat can be further divided into that which comes from inside academia, such as the critique voiced by “quantitative research” and outside of academia, including, for example, New Public Management. Hammersley ( 2018 ), zooming in on one type of qualitative research, ethnography, has argued that it is under treat. Similarly to Fine ( 2003 ), and before him Gans ( 1999 ), he writes that ethnography’ has acquired a range of meanings, and comes in many different versions, these often reflecting sharply divergent epistemological orientations. And already more than twenty years ago while reviewing Denzin and Lincoln’ s Handbook of Qualitative Methods Fine argued:

While this increasing centrality [of qualitative research] might lead one to believe that consensual standards have developed, this belief would be misleading. As the methodology becomes more widely accepted, querulous challengers have raised fundamental questions that collectively have undercut the traditional models of how qualitative research is to be fashioned and presented (1995:417).

According to Hammersley, there are today “serious treats to the practice of ethnographic work, on almost any definition” ( 2018 :1). He lists five external treats: (1) that social research must be accountable and able to show its impact on society; (2) the current emphasis on “big data” and the emphasis on quantitative data and evidence; (3) the labor market pressure in academia that leaves less time for fieldwork (see also Fine and Hancock 2017 ); (4) problems of access to fields; and (5) the increased ethical scrutiny of projects, to which ethnography is particularly exposed. Hammersley discusses some more or less insufficient existing definitions of ethnography.

The current situation, as Hammersley and others note—and in relation not only to ethnography but also qualitative research in general, and as our empirical study shows—is not just unsatisfactory, it may even be harmful for the entire field of qualitative research, and does not help social science at large. We suggest that the lack of clarity of qualitative research is a real problem that must be addressed.

Towards a Definition of Qualitative Research

Seen in an historical light, what is today called qualitative, or sometimes ethnographic, interpretative research – or a number of other terms – has more or less always existed. At the time the founders of sociology – Simmel, Weber, Durkheim and, before them, Marx – were writing, and during the era of the Methodenstreit (“dispute about methods”) in which the German historical school emphasized scientific methods (cf. Swedberg 1990 ), we can at least speak of qualitative forerunners.

Perhaps the most extended discussion of what later became known as qualitative methods in a classic work is Bronisław Malinowski’s ( 1922 ) Argonauts in the Western Pacific , although even this study does not explicitly address the meaning of “qualitative.” In Weber’s ([1921–-22] 1978) work we find a tension between scientific explanations that are based on observation and quantification and interpretative research (see also Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 ).

If we look through major sociology journals like the American Sociological Review , American Journal of Sociology , or Social Forces we will not find the term qualitative sociology before the 1970s. And certainly before then much of what we consider qualitative classics in sociology, like Becker’ study ( 1963 ), had already been produced. Indeed, the Chicago School often combined qualitative and quantitative data within the same study (Fine 1995 ). Our point being that before a disciplinary self-awareness the term quantitative preceded qualitative, and the articulation of the former was a political move to claim scientific status (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ). In the US the World War II seem to have sparked a critique of sociological work, including “qualitative work,” that did not follow the scientific canon (Rawls 2018 ), which was underpinned by a scientifically oriented and value free philosophy of science. As a result the attempts and practice of integrating qualitative and quantitative sociology at Chicago lost ground to sociology that was more oriented to surveys and quantitative work at Columbia under Merton-Lazarsfeld. The quantitative tradition was also able to present textbooks (Lundberg 1951 ) that facilitated the use this approach and its “methods.” The practices of the qualitative tradition, by and large, remained tacit or was part of the mentoring transferred from the renowned masters to their students.

This glimpse into history leads us back to the lack of a coherent account condensed in a definition of qualitative research. Many of the attempts to define the term do not meet the requirements of a proper definition: A definition should be clear, avoid tautology, demarcate its domain in relation to the environment, and ideally only use words in its definiens that themselves are not in need of definition (Hempel 1966 ). A definition can enhance precision and thus clarity by identifying the core of the phenomenon. Preferably, a definition should be short. The typical definition we have found, however, is an ostensive definition, which indicates what qualitative research is about without informing us about what it actually is :

Qualitative research is multimethod in focus, involving an interpretative, naturalistic approach to its subject matter. This means that qualitative researchers study things in their natural settings, attempting to make sense of, or interpret, phenomena in terms of the meanings people bring to them. Qualitative research involves the studied use and collection of a variety of empirical materials – case study, personal experience, introspective, life story, interview, observational, historical, interactional, and visual texts – that describe routine and problematic moments and meanings in individuals’ lives. (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2)

Flick claims that the label “qualitative research” is indeed used as an umbrella for a number of approaches ( 2007 :2–4; 2002 :6), and it is not difficult to identify research fitting this designation. Moreover, whatever it is, it has grown dramatically over the past five decades. In addition, courses have been developed, methods have flourished, arguments about its future have been advanced (for example, Denzin and Lincoln 1994) and criticized (for example, Snow and Morrill 1995 ), and dedicated journals and books have mushroomed. Most social scientists have a clear idea of research and how it differs from journalism, politics and other activities. But the question of what is qualitative in qualitative research is either eluded or eschewed.

We maintain that this lacuna hinders systematic knowledge production based on qualitative research. Paul Lazarsfeld noted the lack of “codification” as early as 1955 when he reviewed 100 qualitative studies in order to offer a codification of the practices (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). Since then many texts on “qualitative research” and its methods have been published, including recent attempts (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ) similar to Lazarsfeld’s. These studies have tried to extract what is qualitative by looking at the large number of empirical “qualitative” studies. Our novel strategy complements these endeavors by taking another approach and looking at the attempts to codify these practices in the form of a definition, as well as to a minor extent take Becker’s study as an exemplar of what qualitative researchers actually do, and what the characteristic of being ‘qualitative’ denotes and implies. We claim that qualitative researchers, if there is such a thing as “qualitative research,” should be able to codify their practices in a condensed, yet general way expressed in language.

Lingering problems of “generalizability” and “how many cases do I need” (Small 2009 ) are blocking advancement – in this line of work qualitative approaches are said to differ considerably from quantitative ones, while some of the former unsuccessfully mimic principles related to the latter (Small 2009 ). Additionally, quantitative researchers sometimes unfairly criticize the first based on their own quality criteria. Scholars like Goertz and Mahoney ( 2012 ) have successfully focused on the different norms and practices beyond what they argue are essentially two different cultures: those working with either qualitative or quantitative methods. Instead, similarly to Becker ( 2017 ) who has recently questioned the usefulness of the distinction between qualitative and quantitative research, we focus on similarities.

The current situation also impedes both students and researchers in focusing their studies and understanding each other’s work (Lazarsfeld and Barton 1982 :239). A third consequence is providing an opening for critiques by scholars operating within different traditions (Valsiner 2000 :101). A fourth issue is that the “implicit use of methods in qualitative research makes the field far less standardized than the quantitative paradigm” (Goertz and Mahoney 2012 :9). Relatedly, the National Science Foundation in the US organized two workshops in 2004 and 2005 to address the scientific foundations of qualitative research involving strategies to improve it and to develop standards of evaluation in qualitative research. However, a specific focus on its distinguishing feature of being “qualitative” while being implicitly acknowledged, was discussed only briefly (for example, Best 2004 ).

In 2014 a theme issue was published in this journal on “Methods, Materials, and Meanings: Designing Cultural Analysis,” discussing central issues in (cultural) qualitative research (Berezin 2014 ; Biernacki 2014 ; Glaeser 2014 ; Lamont and Swidler 2014 ; Spillman 2014). We agree with many of the arguments put forward, such as the risk of methodological tribalism, and that we should not waste energy on debating methods separated from research questions. Nonetheless, a clarification of the relation to what is called “quantitative research” is of outmost importance to avoid misunderstandings and misguided debates between “qualitative” and “quantitative” researchers. Our strategy means that researchers, “qualitative” or “quantitative” they may be, in their actual practice may combine qualitative work and quantitative work.

In this article we accomplish three tasks. First, we systematically survey the literature for meanings of qualitative research by looking at how researchers have defined it. Drawing upon existing knowledge we find that the different meanings and ideas of qualitative research are not yet coherently integrated into one satisfactory definition. Next, we advance our contribution by offering a definition of qualitative research and illustrate its meaning and use partially by expanding on the brief example introduced earlier related to Becker’s work ( 1963 ). We offer a systematic analysis of central themes of what researchers consider to be the core of “qualitative,” regardless of style of work. These themes – which we summarize in terms of four keywords: distinction, process, closeness, improved understanding – constitute part of our literature review, in which each one appears, sometimes with others, but never all in the same definition. They serve as the foundation of our contribution. Our categories are overlapping. Their use is primarily to organize the large amount of definitions we have identified and analyzed, and not necessarily to draw a clear distinction between them. Finally, we continue the elaboration discussed above on the advantages of a clear definition of qualitative research.

In a hermeneutic fashion we propose that there is something meaningful that deserves to be labelled “qualitative research” (Gadamer 1990 ). To approach the question “What is qualitative in qualitative research?” we have surveyed the literature. In conducting our survey we first traced the word’s etymology in dictionaries, encyclopedias, handbooks of the social sciences and of methods and textbooks, mainly in English, which is common to methodology courses. It should be noted that we have zoomed in on sociology and its literature. This discipline has been the site of the largest debate and development of methods that can be called “qualitative,” which suggests that this field should be examined in great detail.

In an ideal situation we should expect that one good definition, or at least some common ideas, would have emerged over the years. This common core of qualitative research should be so accepted that it would appear in at least some textbooks. Since this is not what we found, we decided to pursue an inductive approach to capture maximal variation in the field of qualitative research; we searched in a selection of handbooks, textbooks, book chapters, and books, to which we added the analysis of journal articles. Our sample comprises a total of 89 references.

In practice we focused on the discipline that has had a clear discussion of methods, namely sociology. We also conducted a broad search in the JSTOR database to identify scholarly sociology articles published between 1998 and 2017 in English with a focus on defining or explaining qualitative research. We specifically zoom in on this time frame because we would have expect that this more mature period would have produced clear discussions on the meaning of qualitative research. To find these articles we combined a number of keywords to search the content and/or the title: qualitative (which was always included), definition, empirical, research, methodology, studies, fieldwork, interview and observation .

As a second phase of our research we searched within nine major sociological journals ( American Journal of Sociology , Sociological Theory , American Sociological Review , Contemporary Sociology , Sociological Forum , Sociological Theory , Qualitative Research , Qualitative Sociology and Qualitative Sociology Review ) for articles also published during the past 19 years (1998–2017) that had the term “qualitative” in the title and attempted to define qualitative research.

Lastly we picked two additional journals, Qualitative Research and Qualitative Sociology , in which we could expect to find texts addressing the notion of “qualitative.” From Qualitative Research we chose Volume 14, Issue 6, December 2014, and from Qualitative Sociology we chose Volume 36, Issue 2, June 2017. Within each of these we selected the first article; then we picked the second article of three prior issues. Again we went back another three issues and investigated article number three. Finally we went back another three issues and perused article number four. This selection criteria was used to get a manageable sample for the analysis.

The coding process of the 89 references we gathered in our selected review began soon after the first round of material was gathered, and we reduced the complexity created by our maximum variation sampling (Snow and Anderson 1993 :22) to four different categories within which questions on the nature and properties of qualitative research were discussed. We call them: Qualitative and Quantitative Research, Qualitative Research, Fieldwork, and Grounded Theory. This – which may appear as an illogical grouping – merely reflects the “context” in which the matter of “qualitative” is discussed. If the selection process of the material – books and articles – was informed by pre-knowledge, we used an inductive strategy to code the material. When studying our material, we identified four central notions related to “qualitative” that appear in various combinations in the literature which indicate what is the core of qualitative research. We have labeled them: “distinctions”, “process,” “closeness,” and “improved understanding.” During the research process the categories and notions were improved, refined, changed, and reordered. The coding ended when a sense of saturation in the material arose. In the presentation below all quotations and references come from our empirical material of texts on qualitative research.

Analysis – What is Qualitative Research?

In this section we describe the four categories we identified in the coding, how they differently discuss qualitative research, as well as their overall content. Some salient quotations are selected to represent the type of text sorted under each of the four categories. What we present are examples from the literature.

Qualitative and Quantitative

This analytic category comprises quotations comparing qualitative and quantitative research, a distinction that is frequently used (Brown 2010 :231); in effect this is a conceptual pair that structures the discussion and that may be associated with opposing interests. While the general goal of quantitative and qualitative research is the same – to understand the world better – their methodologies and focus in certain respects differ substantially (Becker 1966 :55). Quantity refers to that property of something that can be determined by measurement. In a dictionary of Statistics and Methodology we find that “(a) When referring to *variables, ‘qualitative’ is another term for *categorical or *nominal. (b) When speaking of kinds of research, ‘qualitative’ refers to studies of subjects that are hard to quantify, such as art history. Qualitative research tends to be a residual category for almost any kind of non-quantitative research” (Stiles 1998:183). But it should be obvious that one could employ a quantitative approach when studying, for example, art history.

The same dictionary states that quantitative is “said of variables or research that can be handled numerically, usually (too sharply) contrasted with *qualitative variables and research” (Stiles 1998:184). From a qualitative perspective “quantitative research” is about numbers and counting, and from a quantitative perspective qualitative research is everything that is not about numbers. But this does not say much about what is “qualitative.” If we turn to encyclopedias we find that in the 1932 edition of the Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences there is no mention of “qualitative.” In the Encyclopedia from 1968 we can read:

Qualitative Analysis. For methods of obtaining, analyzing, and describing data, see [the various entries:] CONTENT ANALYSIS; COUNTED DATA; EVALUATION RESEARCH, FIELD WORK; GRAPHIC PRESENTATION; HISTORIOGRAPHY, especially the article on THE RHETORIC OF HISTORY; INTERVIEWING; OBSERVATION; PERSONALITY MEASUREMENT; PROJECTIVE METHODS; PSYCHOANALYSIS, article on EXPERIMENTAL METHODS; SURVEY ANALYSIS, TABULAR PRESENTATION; TYPOLOGIES. (Vol. 13:225)

Some, like Alford, divide researchers into methodologists or, in his words, “quantitative and qualitative specialists” (Alford 1998 :12). Qualitative research uses a variety of methods, such as intensive interviews or in-depth analysis of historical materials, and it is concerned with a comprehensive account of some event or unit (King et al. 1994 :4). Like quantitative research it can be utilized to study a variety of issues, but it tends to focus on meanings and motivations that underlie cultural symbols, personal experiences, phenomena and detailed understanding of processes in the social world. In short, qualitative research centers on understanding processes, experiences, and the meanings people assign to things (Kalof et al. 2008 :79).

Others simply say that qualitative methods are inherently unscientific (Jovanović 2011 :19). Hood, for instance, argues that words are intrinsically less precise than numbers, and that they are therefore more prone to subjective analysis, leading to biased results (Hood 2006 :219). Qualitative methodologies have raised concerns over the limitations of quantitative templates (Brady et al. 2004 :4). Scholars such as King et al. ( 1994 ), for instance, argue that non-statistical research can produce more reliable results if researchers pay attention to the rules of scientific inference commonly stated in quantitative research. Also, researchers such as Becker ( 1966 :59; 1970 :42–43) have asserted that, if conducted properly, qualitative research and in particular ethnographic field methods, can lead to more accurate results than quantitative studies, in particular, survey research and laboratory experiments.

Some researchers, such as Kalof, Dan, and Dietz ( 2008 :79) claim that the boundaries between the two approaches are becoming blurred, and Small ( 2009 ) argues that currently much qualitative research (especially in North America) tries unsuccessfully and unnecessarily to emulate quantitative standards. For others, qualitative research tends to be more humanistic and discursive (King et al. 1994 :4). Ragin ( 1994 ), and similarly also Becker, ( 1996 :53), Marchel and Owens ( 2007 :303) think that the main distinction between the two styles is overstated and does not rest on the simple dichotomy of “numbers versus words” (Ragin 1994 :xii). Some claim that quantitative data can be utilized to discover associations, but in order to unveil cause and effect a complex research design involving the use of qualitative approaches needs to be devised (Gilbert 2009 :35). Consequently, qualitative data are useful for understanding the nuances lying beyond those processes as they unfold (Gilbert 2009 :35). Others contend that qualitative research is particularly well suited both to identify causality and to uncover fine descriptive distinctions (Fine and Hallett 2014 ; Lichterman and Isaac Reed 2014 ; Katz 2015 ).

There are other ways to separate these two traditions, including normative statements about what qualitative research should be (that is, better or worse than quantitative approaches, concerned with scientific approaches to societal change or vice versa; Snow and Morrill 1995 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2005 ), or whether it should develop falsifiable statements; Best 2004 ).

We propose that quantitative research is largely concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ); the analysis concerns the relations between variables. These categories are primarily not questioned in the study, only their frequency or degree, or the correlations between them (cf. Franzosi 2016 ). If a researcher studies wage differences between women and men, he or she works with given categories: x number of men are compared with y number of women, with a certain wage attributed to each person. The idea is not to move beyond the given categories of wage, men and women; they are the starting point as well as the end point, and undergo no “qualitative change.” Qualitative research, in contrast, investigates relations between categories that are themselves subject to change in the research process. Returning to Becker’s study ( 1963 ), we see that he questioned pre-dispositional theories of deviant behavior working with pre-determined variables such as an individual’s combination of personal qualities or emotional problems. His take, in contrast, was to understand marijuana consumption by developing “variables” as part of the investigation. Thereby he presented new variables, or as we would say today, theoretical concepts, but which are grounded in the empirical material.

Qualitative Research

This category contains quotations that refer to descriptions of qualitative research without making comparisons with quantitative research. Researchers such as Denzin and Lincoln, who have written a series of influential handbooks on qualitative methods (1994; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ; 2005 ), citing Nelson et al. (1992:4), argue that because qualitative research is “interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and sometimes counterdisciplinary” it is difficult to derive one single definition of it (Jovanović 2011 :3). According to them, in fact, “the field” is “many things at the same time,” involving contradictions, tensions over its focus, methods, and how to derive interpretations and findings ( 2003 : 11). Similarly, others, such as Flick ( 2007 :ix–x) contend that agreeing on an accepted definition has increasingly become problematic, and that qualitative research has possibly matured different identities. However, Best holds that “the proliferation of many sorts of activities under the label of qualitative sociology threatens to confuse our discussions” ( 2004 :54). Atkinson’s position is more definite: “the current state of qualitative research and research methods is confused” ( 2005 :3–4).

Qualitative research is about interpretation (Blumer 1969 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln 2003 ), or Verstehen [understanding] (Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ). It is “multi-method,” involving the collection and use of a variety of empirical materials (Denzin and Lincoln 1998; Silverman 2013 ) and approaches (Silverman 2005 ; Flick 2007 ). It focuses not only on the objective nature of behavior but also on its subjective meanings: individuals’ own accounts of their attitudes, motivations, behavior (McIntyre 2005 :127; Creswell 2009 ), events and situations (Bryman 1989) – what people say and do in specific places and institutions (Goodwin and Horowitz 2002 :35–36) in social and temporal contexts (Morrill and Fine 1997). For this reason, following Weber ([1921-22] 1978), it can be described as an interpretative science (McIntyre 2005 :127). But could quantitative research also be concerned with these questions? Also, as pointed out below, does all qualitative research focus on subjective meaning, as some scholars suggest?

Others also distinguish qualitative research by claiming that it collects data using a naturalistic approach (Denzin and Lincoln 2005 :2; Creswell 2009 ), focusing on the meaning actors ascribe to their actions. But again, does all qualitative research need to be collected in situ? And does qualitative research have to be inherently concerned with meaning? Flick ( 2007 ), referring to Denzin and Lincoln ( 2005 ), mentions conversation analysis as an example of qualitative research that is not concerned with the meanings people bring to a situation, but rather with the formal organization of talk. Still others, such as Ragin ( 1994 :85), note that qualitative research is often (especially early on in the project, we would add) less structured than other kinds of social research – a characteristic connected to its flexibility and that can lead both to potentially better, but also worse results. But is this not a feature of this type of research, rather than a defining description of its essence? Wouldn’t this comment also apply, albeit to varying degrees, to quantitative research?

In addition, Strauss ( 2003 ), along with others, such as Alvesson and Kärreman ( 2011 :10–76), argue that qualitative researchers struggle to capture and represent complex phenomena partially because they tend to collect a large amount of data. While his analysis is correct at some points – “It is necessary to do detailed, intensive, microscopic examination of the data in order to bring out the amazing complexity of what lies in, behind, and beyond those data” (Strauss 2003 :10) – much of his analysis concerns the supposed focus of qualitative research and its challenges, rather than exactly what it is about. But even in this instance we would make a weak case arguing that these are strictly the defining features of qualitative research. Some researchers seem to focus on the approach or the methods used, or even on the way material is analyzed. Several researchers stress the naturalistic assumption of investigating the world, suggesting that meaning and interpretation appear to be a core matter of qualitative research.

We can also see that in this category there is no consensus about specific qualitative methods nor about qualitative data. Many emphasize interpretation, but quantitative research, too, involves interpretation; the results of a regression analysis, for example, certainly have to be interpreted, and the form of meta-analysis that factor analysis provides indeed requires interpretation However, there is no interpretation of quantitative raw data, i.e., numbers in tables. One common thread is that qualitative researchers have to get to grips with their data in order to understand what is being studied in great detail, irrespective of the type of empirical material that is being analyzed. This observation is connected to the fact that qualitative researchers routinely make several adjustments of focus and research design as their studies progress, in many cases until the very end of the project (Kalof et al. 2008 ). If you, like Becker, do not start out with a detailed theory, adjustments such as the emergence and refinement of research questions will occur during the research process. We have thus found a number of useful reflections about qualitative research scattered across different sources, but none of them effectively describe the defining characteristics of this approach.

Although qualitative research does not appear to be defined in terms of a specific method, it is certainly common that fieldwork, i.e., research that entails that the researcher spends considerable time in the field that is studied and use the knowledge gained as data, is seen as emblematic of or even identical to qualitative research. But because we understand that fieldwork tends to focus primarily on the collection and analysis of qualitative data, we expected to find within it discussions on the meaning of “qualitative.” But, again, this was not the case.

Instead, we found material on the history of this approach (for example, Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 ; Atkinson et al. 2001), including how it has changed; for example, by adopting a more self-reflexive practice (Heyl 2001), as well as the different nomenclature that has been adopted, such as fieldwork, ethnography, qualitative research, naturalistic research, participant observation and so on (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ; Gans 1999 ).

We retrieved definitions of ethnography, such as “the study of people acting in the natural courses of their daily lives,” involving a “resocialization of the researcher” (Emerson 1988 :1) through intense immersion in others’ social worlds (see also examples in Hammersley 2018 ). This may be accomplished by direct observation and also participation (Neuman 2007 :276), although others, such as Denzin ( 1970 :185), have long recognized other types of observation, including non-participant (“fly on the wall”). In this category we have also isolated claims and opposing views, arguing that this type of research is distinguished primarily by where it is conducted (natural settings) (Hughes 1971:496), and how it is carried out (a variety of methods are applied) or, for some most importantly, by involving an active, empathetic immersion in those being studied (Emerson 1988 :2). We also retrieved descriptions of the goals it attends in relation to how it is taught (understanding subjective meanings of the people studied, primarily develop theory, or contribute to social change) (see for example, Corte and Irwin 2017 ; Frankfort-Nachmias and Nachmias 1996 :281; Trier-Bieniek 2012 :639) by collecting the richest possible data (Lofland et al. 2006 ) to derive “thick descriptions” (Geertz 1973 ), and/or to aim at theoretical statements of general scope and applicability (for example, Emerson 1988 ; Fine 2003 ). We have identified guidelines on how to evaluate it (for example Becker 1996 ; Lamont 2004 ) and have retrieved instructions on how it should be conducted (for example, Lofland et al. 2006 ). For instance, analysis should take place while the data gathering unfolds (Emerson 1988 ; Hammersley and Atkinson 2007 ; Lofland et al. 2006 ), observations should be of long duration (Becker 1970 :54; Goffman 1989 ), and data should be of high quantity (Becker 1970 :52–53), as well as other questionable distinctions between fieldwork and other methods:

Field studies differ from other methods of research in that the researcher performs the task of selecting topics, decides what questions to ask, and forges interest in the course of the research itself . This is in sharp contrast to many ‘theory-driven’ and ‘hypothesis-testing’ methods. (Lofland and Lofland 1995 :5)

But could not, for example, a strictly interview-based study be carried out with the same amount of flexibility, such as sequential interviewing (for example, Small 2009 )? Once again, are quantitative approaches really as inflexible as some qualitative researchers think? Moreover, this category stresses the role of the actors’ meaning, which requires knowledge and close interaction with people, their practices and their lifeworld.

It is clear that field studies – which are seen by some as the “gold standard” of qualitative research – are nonetheless only one way of doing qualitative research. There are other methods, but it is not clear why some are more qualitative than others, or why they are better or worse. Fieldwork is characterized by interaction with the field (the material) and understanding of the phenomenon that is being studied. In Becker’s case, he had general experience from fields in which marihuana was used, based on which he did interviews with actual users in several fields.

Grounded Theory

Another major category we identified in our sample is Grounded Theory. We found descriptions of it most clearly in Glaser and Strauss’ ([1967] 2010 ) original articulation, Strauss and Corbin ( 1998 ) and Charmaz ( 2006 ), as well as many other accounts of what it is for: generating and testing theory (Strauss 2003 :xi). We identified explanations of how this task can be accomplished – such as through two main procedures: constant comparison and theoretical sampling (Emerson 1998:96), and how using it has helped researchers to “think differently” (for example, Strauss and Corbin 1998 :1). We also read descriptions of its main traits, what it entails and fosters – for instance, an exceptional flexibility, an inductive approach (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :31–33; 1990; Esterberg 2002 :7), an ability to step back and critically analyze situations, recognize tendencies towards bias, think abstractly and be open to criticism, enhance sensitivity towards the words and actions of respondents, and develop a sense of absorption and devotion to the research process (Strauss and Corbin 1998 :5–6). Accordingly, we identified discussions of the value of triangulating different methods (both using and not using grounded theory), including quantitative ones, and theories to achieve theoretical development (most comprehensively in Denzin 1970 ; Strauss and Corbin 1998 ; Timmermans and Tavory 2012 ). We have also located arguments about how its practice helps to systematize data collection, analysis and presentation of results (Glaser and Strauss [1967] 2010 :16).

Grounded theory offers a systematic approach which requires researchers to get close to the field; closeness is a requirement of identifying questions and developing new concepts or making further distinctions with regard to old concepts. In contrast to other qualitative approaches, grounded theory emphasizes the detailed coding process, and the numerous fine-tuned distinctions that the researcher makes during the process. Within this category, too, we could not find a satisfying discussion of the meaning of qualitative research.

Defining Qualitative Research

In sum, our analysis shows that some notions reappear in the discussion of qualitative research, such as understanding, interpretation, “getting close” and making distinctions. These notions capture aspects of what we think is “qualitative.” However, a comprehensive definition that is useful and that can further develop the field is lacking, and not even a clear picture of its essential elements appears. In other words no definition emerges from our data, and in our research process we have moved back and forth between our empirical data and the attempt to present a definition. Our concrete strategy, as stated above, is to relate qualitative and quantitative research, or more specifically, qualitative and quantitative work. We use an ideal-typical notion of quantitative research which relies on taken for granted and numbered variables. This means that the data consists of variables on different scales, such as ordinal, but frequently ratio and absolute scales, and the representation of the numbers to the variables, i.e. the justification of the assignment of numbers to object or phenomenon, are not questioned, though the validity may be questioned. In this section we return to the notion of quality and try to clarify it while presenting our contribution.

Broadly, research refers to the activity performed by people trained to obtain knowledge through systematic procedures. Notions such as “objectivity” and “reflexivity,” “systematic,” “theory,” “evidence” and “openness” are here taken for granted in any type of research. Next, building on our empirical analysis we explain the four notions that we have identified as central to qualitative work: distinctions, process, closeness, and improved understanding. In discussing them, ultimately in relation to one another, we make their meaning even more precise. Our idea, in short, is that only when these ideas that we present separately for analytic purposes are brought together can we speak of qualitative research.

Distinctions

We believe that the possibility of making new distinctions is one the defining characteristics of qualitative research. It clearly sets it apart from quantitative analysis which works with taken-for-granted variables, albeit as mentioned, meta-analyses, for example, factor analysis may result in new variables. “Quality” refers essentially to distinctions, as already pointed out by Aristotle. He discusses the term “qualitative” commenting: “By a quality I mean that in virtue of which things are said to be qualified somehow” (Aristotle 1984:14). Quality is about what something is or has, which means that the distinction from its environment is crucial. We see qualitative research as a process in which significant new distinctions are made to the scholarly community; to make distinctions is a key aspect of obtaining new knowledge; a point, as we will see, that also has implications for “quantitative research.” The notion of being “significant” is paramount. New distinctions by themselves are not enough; just adding concepts only increases complexity without furthering our knowledge. The significance of new distinctions is judged against the communal knowledge of the research community. To enable this discussion and judgements central elements of rational discussion are required (cf. Habermas [1981] 1987 ; Davidsson [ 1988 ] 2001) to identify what is new and relevant scientific knowledge. Relatedly, Ragin alludes to the idea of new and useful knowledge at a more concrete level: “Qualitative methods are appropriate for in-depth examination of cases because they aid the identification of key features of cases. Most qualitative methods enhance data” (1994:79). When Becker ( 1963 ) studied deviant behavior and investigated how people became marihuana smokers, he made distinctions between the ways in which people learned how to smoke. This is a classic example of how the strategy of “getting close” to the material, for example the text, people or pictures that are subject to analysis, may enable researchers to obtain deeper insight and new knowledge by making distinctions – in this instance on the initial notion of learning how to smoke. Others have stressed the making of distinctions in relation to coding or theorizing. Emerson et al. ( 1995 ), for example, hold that “qualitative coding is a way of opening up avenues of inquiry,” meaning that the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic insights through close examination of and reflection on data (Emerson et al. 1995 :151). Goodwin and Horowitz highlight making distinctions in relation to theory-building writing: “Close engagement with their cases typically requires qualitative researchers to adapt existing theories or to make new conceptual distinctions or theoretical arguments to accommodate new data” ( 2002 : 37). In the ideal-typical quantitative research only existing and so to speak, given, variables would be used. If this is the case no new distinction are made. But, would not also many “quantitative” researchers make new distinctions?

Process does not merely suggest that research takes time. It mainly implies that qualitative new knowledge results from a process that involves several phases, and above all iteration. Qualitative research is about oscillation between theory and evidence, analysis and generating material, between first- and second -order constructs (Schütz 1962 :59), between getting in contact with something, finding sources, becoming deeply familiar with a topic, and then distilling and communicating some of its essential features. The main point is that the categories that the researcher uses, and perhaps takes for granted at the beginning of the research process, usually undergo qualitative changes resulting from what is found. Becker describes how he tested hypotheses and let the jargon of the users develop into theoretical concepts. This happens over time while the study is being conducted, exemplifying what we mean by process.

In the research process, a pilot-study may be used to get a first glance of, for example, the field, how to approach it, and what methods can be used, after which the method and theory are chosen or refined before the main study begins. Thus, the empirical material is often central from the start of the project and frequently leads to adjustments by the researcher. Likewise, during the main study categories are not fixed; the empirical material is seen in light of the theory used, but it is also given the opportunity to kick back, thereby resisting attempts to apply theoretical straightjackets (Becker 1970 :43). In this process, coding and analysis are interwoven, and thus are often important steps for getting closer to the phenomenon and deciding what to focus on next. Becker began his research by interviewing musicians close to him, then asking them to refer him to other musicians, and later on doubling his original sample of about 25 to include individuals in other professions (Becker 1973:46). Additionally, he made use of some participant observation, documents, and interviews with opiate users made available to him by colleagues. As his inductive theory of deviance evolved, Becker expanded his sample in order to fine tune it, and test the accuracy and generality of his hypotheses. In addition, he introduced a negative case and discussed the null hypothesis ( 1963 :44). His phasic career model is thus based on a research design that embraces processual work. Typically, process means to move between “theory” and “material” but also to deal with negative cases, and Becker ( 1998 ) describes how discovering these negative cases impacted his research design and ultimately its findings.

Obviously, all research is process-oriented to some degree. The point is that the ideal-typical quantitative process does not imply change of the data, and iteration between data, evidence, hypotheses, empirical work, and theory. The data, quantified variables, are, in most cases fixed. Merging of data, which of course can be done in a quantitative research process, does not mean new data. New hypotheses are frequently tested, but the “raw data is often the “the same.” Obviously, over time new datasets are made available and put into use.

Another characteristic that is emphasized in our sample is that qualitative researchers – and in particular ethnographers – can, or as Goffman put it, ought to ( 1989 ), get closer to the phenomenon being studied and their data than quantitative researchers (for example, Silverman 2009 :85). Put differently, essentially because of their methods qualitative researchers get into direct close contact with those being investigated and/or the material, such as texts, being analyzed. Becker started out his interview study, as we noted, by talking to those he knew in the field of music to get closer to the phenomenon he was studying. By conducting interviews he got even closer. Had he done more observations, he would undoubtedly have got even closer to the field.

Additionally, ethnographers’ design enables researchers to follow the field over time, and the research they do is almost by definition longitudinal, though the time in the field is studied obviously differs between studies. The general characteristic of closeness over time maximizes the chances of unexpected events, new data (related, for example, to archival research as additional sources, and for ethnography for situations not necessarily previously thought of as instrumental – what Mannay and Morgan ( 2015 ) term the “waiting field”), serendipity (Merton and Barber 2004 ; Åkerström 2013 ), and possibly reactivity, as well as the opportunity to observe disrupted patterns that translate into exemplars of negative cases. Two classic examples of this are Becker’s finding of what medical students call “crocks” (Becker et al. 1961 :317), and Geertz’s ( 1973 ) study of “deep play” in Balinese society.

By getting and staying so close to their data – be it pictures, text or humans interacting (Becker was himself a musician) – for a long time, as the research progressively focuses, qualitative researchers are prompted to continually test their hunches, presuppositions and hypotheses. They test them against a reality that often (but certainly not always), and practically, as well as metaphorically, talks back, whether by validating them, or disqualifying their premises – correctly, as well as incorrectly (Fine 2003 ; Becker 1970 ). This testing nonetheless often leads to new directions for the research. Becker, for example, says that he was initially reading psychological theories, but when facing the data he develops a theory that looks at, you may say, everything but psychological dispositions to explain the use of marihuana. Especially researchers involved with ethnographic methods have a fairly unique opportunity to dig up and then test (in a circular, continuous and temporal way) new research questions and findings as the research progresses, and thereby to derive previously unimagined and uncharted distinctions by getting closer to the phenomenon under study.

Let us stress that getting close is by no means restricted to ethnography. The notion of hermeneutic circle and hermeneutics as a general way of understanding implies that we must get close to the details in order to get the big picture. This also means that qualitative researchers can literally also make use of details of pictures as evidence (cf. Harper 2002). Thus, researchers may get closer both when generating the material or when analyzing it.

Quantitative research, we maintain, in the ideal-typical representation cannot get closer to the data. The data is essentially numbers in tables making up the variables (Franzosi 2016 :138). The data may originally have been “qualitative,” but once reduced to numbers there can only be a type of “hermeneutics” about what the number may stand for. The numbers themselves, however, are non-ambiguous. Thus, in quantitative research, interpretation, if done, is not about the data itself—the numbers—but what the numbers stand for. It follows that the interpretation is essentially done in a more “speculative” mode without direct empirical evidence (cf. Becker 2017 ).

Improved Understanding

While distinction, process and getting closer refer to the qualitative work of the researcher, improved understanding refers to its conditions and outcome of this work. Understanding cuts deeper than explanation, which to some may mean a causally verified correlation between variables. The notion of explanation presupposes the notion of understanding since explanation does not include an idea of how knowledge is gained (Manicas 2006 : 15). Understanding, we argue, is the core concept of what we call the outcome of the process when research has made use of all the other elements that were integrated in the research. Understanding, then, has a special status in qualitative research since it refers both to the conditions of knowledge and the outcome of the process. Understanding can to some extent be seen as the condition of explanation and occurs in a process of interpretation, which naturally refers to meaning (Gadamer 1990 ). It is fundamentally connected to knowing, and to the knowing of how to do things (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ). Conceptually the term hermeneutics is used to account for this process. Heidegger ties hermeneutics to human being and not possible to separate from the understanding of being ( 1988 ). Here we use it in a broader sense, and more connected to method in general (cf. Seiffert 1992 ). The abovementioned aspects – for example, “objectivity” and “reflexivity” – of the approach are conditions of scientific understanding. Understanding is the result of a circular process and means that the parts are understood in light of the whole, and vice versa. Understanding presupposes pre-understanding, or in other words, some knowledge of the phenomenon studied. The pre-understanding, even in the form of prejudices, are in qualitative research process, which we see as iterative, questioned, which gradually or suddenly change due to the iteration of data, evidence and concepts. However, qualitative research generates understanding in the iterative process when the researcher gets closer to the data, e.g., by going back and forth between field and analysis in a process that generates new data that changes the evidence, and, ultimately, the findings. Questioning, to ask questions, and put what one assumes—prejudices and presumption—in question, is central to understand something (Heidegger [1927] 2001 ; Gadamer 1990 :368–384). We propose that this iterative process in which the process of understanding occurs is characteristic of qualitative research.

Improved understanding means that we obtain scientific knowledge of something that we as a scholarly community did not know before, or that we get to know something better. It means that we understand more about how parts are related to one another, and to other things we already understand (see also Fine and Hallett 2014 ). Understanding is an important condition for qualitative research. It is not enough to identify correlations, make distinctions, and work in a process in which one gets close to the field or phenomena. Understanding is accomplished when the elements are integrated in an iterative process.

It is, moreover, possible to understand many things, and researchers, just like children, may come to understand new things every day as they engage with the world. This subjective condition of understanding – namely, that a person gains a better understanding of something –is easily met. To be qualified as “scientific,” the understanding must be general and useful to many; it must be public. But even this generally accessible understanding is not enough in order to speak of “scientific understanding.” Though we as a collective can increase understanding of everything in virtually all potential directions as a result also of qualitative work, we refrain from this “objective” way of understanding, which has no means of discriminating between what we gain in understanding. Scientific understanding means that it is deemed relevant from the scientific horizon (compare Schütz 1962 : 35–38, 46, 63), and that it rests on the pre-understanding that the scientists have and must have in order to understand. In other words, the understanding gained must be deemed useful by other researchers, so that they can build on it. We thus see understanding from a pragmatic, rather than a subjective or objective perspective. Improved understanding is related to the question(s) at hand. Understanding, in order to represent an improvement, must be an improvement in relation to the existing body of knowledge of the scientific community (James [ 1907 ] 1955). Scientific understanding is, by definition, collective, as expressed in Weber’s famous note on objectivity, namely that scientific work aims at truths “which … can claim, even for a Chinese, the validity appropriate to an empirical analysis” ([1904] 1949 :59). By qualifying “improved understanding” we argue that it is a general defining characteristic of qualitative research. Becker‘s ( 1966 ) study and other research of deviant behavior increased our understanding of the social learning processes of how individuals start a behavior. And it also added new knowledge about the labeling of deviant behavior as a social process. Few studies, of course, make the same large contribution as Becker’s, but are nonetheless qualitative research.

Understanding in the phenomenological sense, which is a hallmark of qualitative research, we argue, requires meaning and this meaning is derived from the context, and above all the data being analyzed. The ideal-typical quantitative research operates with given variables with different numbers. This type of material is not enough to establish meaning at the level that truly justifies understanding. In other words, many social science explanations offer ideas about correlations or even causal relations, but this does not mean that the meaning at the level of the data analyzed, is understood. This leads us to say that there are indeed many explanations that meet the criteria of understanding, for example the explanation of how one becomes a marihuana smoker presented by Becker. However, we may also understand a phenomenon without explaining it, and we may have potential explanations, or better correlations, that are not really understood.

We may speak more generally of quantitative research and its data to clarify what we see as an important distinction. The “raw data” that quantitative research—as an idealtypical activity, refers to is not available for further analysis; the numbers, once created, are not to be questioned (Franzosi 2016 : 138). If the researcher is to do “more” or “change” something, this will be done by conjectures based on theoretical knowledge or based on the researcher’s lifeworld. Both qualitative and quantitative research is based on the lifeworld, and all researchers use prejudices and pre-understanding in the research process. This idea is present in the works of Heidegger ( 2001 ) and Heisenberg (cited in Franzosi 2010 :619). Qualitative research, as we argued, involves the interaction and questioning of concepts (theory), data, and evidence.

Ragin ( 2004 :22) points out that “a good definition of qualitative research should be inclusive and should emphasize its key strengths and features, not what it lacks (for example, the use of sophisticated quantitative techniques).” We define qualitative research as an iterative process in which improved understanding to the scientific community is achieved by making new significant distinctions resulting from getting closer to the phenomenon studied. Qualitative research, as defined here, is consequently a combination of two criteria: (i) how to do things –namely, generating and analyzing empirical material, in an iterative process in which one gets closer by making distinctions, and (ii) the outcome –improved understanding novel to the scholarly community. Is our definition applicable to our own study? In this study we have closely read the empirical material that we generated, and the novel distinction of the notion “qualitative research” is the outcome of an iterative process in which both deduction and induction were involved, in which we identified the categories that we analyzed. We thus claim to meet the first criteria, “how to do things.” The second criteria cannot be judged but in a partial way by us, namely that the “outcome” —in concrete form the definition-improves our understanding to others in the scientific community.

We have defined qualitative research, or qualitative scientific work, in relation to quantitative scientific work. Given this definition, qualitative research is about questioning the pre-given (taken for granted) variables, but it is thus also about making new distinctions of any type of phenomenon, for example, by coining new concepts, including the identification of new variables. This process, as we have discussed, is carried out in relation to empirical material, previous research, and thus in relation to theory. Theory and previous research cannot be escaped or bracketed. According to hermeneutic principles all scientific work is grounded in the lifeworld, and as social scientists we can thus never fully bracket our pre-understanding.

We have proposed that quantitative research, as an idealtype, is concerned with pre-determined variables (Small 2008 ). Variables are epistemically fixed, but can vary in terms of dimensions, such as frequency or number. Age is an example; as a variable it can take on different numbers. In relation to quantitative research, qualitative research does not reduce its material to number and variables. If this is done the process of comes to a halt, the researcher gets more distanced from her data, and it makes it no longer possible to make new distinctions that increase our understanding. We have above discussed the components of our definition in relation to quantitative research. Our conclusion is that in the research that is called quantitative there are frequent and necessary qualitative elements.

Further, comparative empirical research on researchers primarily working with ”quantitative” approaches and those working with ”qualitative” approaches, we propose, would perhaps show that there are many similarities in practices of these two approaches. This is not to deny dissimilarities, or the different epistemic and ontic presuppositions that may be more or less strongly associated with the two different strands (see Goertz and Mahoney 2012 ). Our point is nonetheless that prejudices and preconceptions about researchers are unproductive, and that as other researchers have argued, differences may be exaggerated (e.g., Becker 1996 : 53, 2017 ; Marchel and Owens 2007 :303; Ragin 1994 ), and that a qualitative dimension is present in both kinds of work.

Several things follow from our findings. The most important result is the relation to quantitative research. In our analysis we have separated qualitative research from quantitative research. The point is not to label individual researchers, methods, projects, or works as either “quantitative” or “qualitative.” By analyzing, i.e., taking apart, the notions of quantitative and qualitative, we hope to have shown the elements of qualitative research. Our definition captures the elements, and how they, when combined in practice, generate understanding. As many of the quotations we have used suggest, one conclusion of our study holds that qualitative approaches are not inherently connected with a specific method. Put differently, none of the methods that are frequently labelled “qualitative,” such as interviews or participant observation, are inherently “qualitative.” What matters, given our definition, is whether one works qualitatively or quantitatively in the research process, until the results are produced. Consequently, our analysis also suggests that those researchers working with what in the literature and in jargon is often called “quantitative research” are almost bound to make use of what we have identified as qualitative elements in any research project. Our findings also suggest that many” quantitative” researchers, at least to some extent, are engaged with qualitative work, such as when research questions are developed, variables are constructed and combined, and hypotheses are formulated. Furthermore, a research project may hover between “qualitative” and “quantitative” or start out as “qualitative” and later move into a “quantitative” (a distinct strategy that is not similar to “mixed methods” or just simply combining induction and deduction). More generally speaking, the categories of “qualitative” and “quantitative,” unfortunately, often cover up practices, and it may lead to “camps” of researchers opposing one another. For example, regardless of the researcher is primarily oriented to “quantitative” or “qualitative” research, the role of theory is neglected (cf. Swedberg 2017 ). Our results open up for an interaction not characterized by differences, but by different emphasis, and similarities.

Let us take two examples to briefly indicate how qualitative elements can fruitfully be combined with quantitative. Franzosi ( 2010 ) has discussed the relations between quantitative and qualitative approaches, and more specifically the relation between words and numbers. He analyzes texts and argues that scientific meaning cannot be reduced to numbers. Put differently, the meaning of the numbers is to be understood by what is taken for granted, and what is part of the lifeworld (Schütz 1962 ). Franzosi shows how one can go about using qualitative and quantitative methods and data to address scientific questions analyzing violence in Italy at the time when fascism was rising (1919–1922). Aspers ( 2006 ) studied the meaning of fashion photographers. He uses an empirical phenomenological approach, and establishes meaning at the level of actors. In a second step this meaning, and the different ideal-typical photographers constructed as a result of participant observation and interviews, are tested using quantitative data from a database; in the first phase to verify the different ideal-types, in the second phase to use these types to establish new knowledge about the types. In both of these cases—and more examples can be found—authors move from qualitative data and try to keep the meaning established when using the quantitative data.

A second main result of our study is that a definition, and we provided one, offers a way for research to clarify, and even evaluate, what is done. Hence, our definition can guide researchers and students, informing them on how to think about concrete research problems they face, and to show what it means to get closer in a process in which new distinctions are made. The definition can also be used to evaluate the results, given that it is a standard of evaluation (cf. Hammersley 2007 ), to see whether new distinctions are made and whether this improves our understanding of what is researched, in addition to the evaluation of how the research was conducted. By making what is qualitative research explicit it becomes easier to communicate findings, and it is thereby much harder to fly under the radar with substandard research since there are standards of evaluation which make it easier to separate “good” from “not so good” qualitative research.

To conclude, our analysis, which ends with a definition of qualitative research can thus both address the “internal” issues of what is qualitative research, and the “external” critiques that make it harder to do qualitative research, to which both pressure from quantitative methods and general changes in society contribute.

Åkerström, Malin. 2013. Curiosity and serendipity in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 10–18.

Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. 1998. The craft of inquiry. Theories, methods, evidence . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, Mats, and Dan Kärreman. 2011. Qualitative research and theory development. Mystery as method . London: SAGE Publications.

Book   Google Scholar  

Aspers, Patrik. 2006. Markets in Fashion, A Phenomenological Approach. London Routledge.

Atkinson, Paul. 2005. Qualitative research. Unity and diversity. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6 (3): 1–15.

Becker, Howard S. 1963. Outsiders. Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York: The Free Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1966. Whose side are we on? Social Problems 14 (3): 239–247.

Article   Google Scholar  

Becker, Howard S. 1970. Sociological work. Method and substance . New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

Becker, Howard S. 1996. The epistemology of qualitative research. In Ethnography and human development. Context and meaning in social inquiry , ed. Jessor Richard, Colby Anne, and Richard A. Shweder, 53–71. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 1998. Tricks of the trade. How to think about your research while you're doing it . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard S. 2017. Evidence . Chigaco: University of Chicago Press.

Becker, Howard, Blanche Geer, Everett Hughes, and Anselm Strauss. 1961. Boys in White, student culture in medical school . New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Berezin, Mabel. 2014. How do we know what we mean? Epistemological dilemmas in cultural sociology. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 141–151.

Best, Joel. 2004. Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , eds . Charles, Ragin, Joanne, Nagel, and Patricia White, 53-54. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf .

Biernacki, Richard. 2014. Humanist interpretation versus coding text samples. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 173–188.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Brady, Henry, David Collier, and Jason Seawright. 2004. Refocusing the discussion of methodology. In Rethinking social inquiry. Diverse tools, shared standards , ed. Brady Henry and Collier David, 3–22. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

Brown, Allison P. 2010. Qualitative method and compromise in applied social research. Qualitative Research 10 (2): 229–248.

Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory . London: Sage.

Corte, Ugo, and Katherine Irwin. 2017. “The Form and Flow of Teaching Ethnographic Knowledge: Hands-on Approaches for Learning Epistemology” Teaching Sociology 45(3): 209-219.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches . 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Davidsson, David. 1988. 2001. The myth of the subjective. In Subjective, intersubjective, objective , ed. David Davidsson, 39–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Denzin, Norman K. 1970. The research act: A theoretical introduction to Ssociological methods . Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company Publishers.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2003. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–45. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Denzin, Norman K., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In The Sage handbook of qualitative research , ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 1–32. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Emerson, Robert M., ed. 1988. Contemporary field research. A collection of readings . Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Emerson, Robert M., Rachel I. Fretz, and Linda L. Shaw. 1995. Writing ethnographic fieldnotes . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Esterberg, Kristin G. 2002. Qualitative methods in social research . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fine, Gary Alan. 1995. Review of “handbook of qualitative research.” Contemporary Sociology 24 (3): 416–418.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2003. “ Toward a Peopled Ethnography: Developing Theory from Group Life.” Ethnography . 4(1):41-60.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Black Hawk Hancock. 2017. The new ethnographer at work. Qualitative Research 17 (2): 260–268.

Fine, Gary Alan, and Timothy Hallett. 2014. Stranger and stranger: Creating theory through ethnographic distance and authority. Journal of Organizational Ethnography 3 (2): 188–203.

Flick, Uwe. 2002. Qualitative research. State of the art. Social Science Information 41 (1): 5–24.

Flick, Uwe. 2007. Designing qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Frankfort-Nachmias, Chava, and David Nachmias. 1996. Research methods in the social sciences . 5th ed. London: Edward Arnold.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2010. Sociology, narrative, and the quality versus quantity debate (Goethe versus Newton): Can computer-assisted story grammars help us understand the rise of Italian fascism (1919- 1922)? Theory and Society 39 (6): 593–629.

Franzosi, Roberto. 2016. From method and measurement to narrative and number. International journal of social research methodology 19 (1): 137–141.

Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1990. Wahrheit und Methode, Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik . Band 1, Hermeneutik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

Gans, Herbert. 1999. Participant Observation in an Age of “Ethnography”. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28 (5): 540–548.

Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures . New York: Basic Books.

Gilbert, Nigel. 2009. Researching social life . 3rd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Glaeser, Andreas. 2014. Hermeneutic institutionalism: Towards a new synthesis. Qualitative Sociology 37: 207–241.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. [1967] 2010. The discovery of grounded theory. Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne: Aldine.

Goertz, Gary, and James Mahoney. 2012. A tale of two cultures: Qualitative and quantitative research in the social sciences . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1989. On fieldwork. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 18 (2): 123–132.

Goodwin, Jeff, and Ruth Horowitz. 2002. Introduction. The methodological strengths and dilemmas of qualitative sociology. Qualitative Sociology 25 (1): 33–47.

Habermas, Jürgen. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action . Oxford: Polity Press.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2007. The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 30 (3): 287–305.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2013. What is qualitative research? Bloomsbury Publishing.

Hammersley, Martyn. 2018. What is ethnography? Can it survive should it? Ethnography and Education 13 (1): 1–17.

Hammersley, Martyn, and Paul Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. Principles in practice . London: Tavistock Publications.

Heidegger, Martin. [1927] 2001. Sein und Zeit . Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Heidegger, Martin. 1988. 1923. Ontologie. Hermeneutik der Faktizität, Gesamtausgabe II. Abteilung: Vorlesungen 1919-1944, Band 63, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Hempel, Carl G. 1966. Philosophy of the natural sciences . Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Hood, Jane C. 2006. Teaching against the text. The case of qualitative methods. Teaching Sociology 34 (3): 207–223.

James, William. 1907. 1955. Pragmatism . New York: Meredian Books.

Jovanović, Gordana. 2011. Toward a social history of qualitative research. History of the Human Sciences 24 (2): 1–27.

Kalof, Linda, Amy Dan, and Thomas Dietz. 2008. Essentials of social research . London: Open University Press.

Katz, Jack. 2015. Situational evidence: Strategies for causal reasoning from observational field notes. Sociological Methods & Research 44 (1): 108–144.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, S. Sidney, and S. Verba. 1994. Designing social inquiry. In Scientific inference in qualitative research . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lamont, Michelle. 2004. Evaluating qualitative research: Some empirical findings and an agenda. In Report from workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research , ed. M. Lamont and P. White, 91–95. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Lamont, Michèle, and Ann Swidler. 2014. Methodological pluralism and the possibilities and limits of interviewing. Qualitative Sociology 37 (2): 153–171.

Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Alan Barton. 1982. Some functions of qualitative analysis in social research. In The varied sociology of Paul Lazarsfeld , ed. Patricia Kendall, 239–285. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lichterman, Paul, and Isaac Reed I (2014), Theory and Contrastive Explanation in Ethnography. Sociological methods and research. Prepublished 27 October 2014; https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114554458 .

Lofland, John, and Lyn Lofland. 1995. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 3rd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lofland, John, David A. Snow, Leon Anderson, and Lyn H. Lofland. 2006. Analyzing social settings. A guide to qualitative observation and analysis . 4th ed. Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Long, Adrew F., and Mary Godfrey. 2004. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 7 (2): 181–196.

Lundberg, George. 1951. Social research: A study in methods of gathering data . New York: Longmans, Green and Co..

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1922. Argonauts of the Western Pacific: An account of native Enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian New Guinea . London: Routledge.

Manicas, Peter. 2006. A realist philosophy of science: Explanation and understanding . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Marchel, Carol, and Stephanie Owens. 2007. Qualitative research in psychology. Could William James get a job? History of Psychology 10 (4): 301–324.

McIntyre, Lisa J. 2005. Need to know. Social science research methods . Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Merton, Robert K., and Elinor Barber. 2004. The travels and adventures of serendipity. A Study in Sociological Semantics and the Sociology of Science . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Mannay, Dawn, and Melanie Morgan. 2015. Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique? Reflections from the ‘waiting field‘. Qualitative Research 15 (2): 166–182.

Neuman, Lawrence W. 2007. Basics of social research. Qualitative and quantitative approaches . 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

Ragin, Charles C. 1994. Constructing social research. The unity and diversity of method . Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press.

Ragin, Charles C. 2004. Introduction to session 1: Defining qualitative research. In Workshop on Scientific Foundations of Qualitative Research , 22, ed. Charles C. Ragin, Joane Nagel, Patricia White. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2004/nsf04219/nsf04219.pdf

Rawls, Anne. 2018. The Wartime narrative in US sociology, 1940–7: Stigmatizing qualitative sociology in the name of ‘science,’ European Journal of Social Theory (Online first).

Schütz, Alfred. 1962. Collected papers I: The problem of social reality . The Hague: Nijhoff.

Seiffert, Helmut. 1992. Einführung in die Hermeneutik . Tübingen: Franke.

Silverman, David. 2005. Doing qualitative research. A practical handbook . 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2009. A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about qualitative research . London: SAGE Publications.

Silverman, David. 2013. What counts as qualitative research? Some cautionary comments. Qualitative Sociology Review 9 (2): 48–55.

Small, Mario L. 2009. “How many cases do I need?” on science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10 (1): 5–38.

Small, Mario L 2008. Lost in translation: How not to make qualitative research more scientific. In Workshop on interdisciplinary standards for systematic qualitative research, ed in Michelle Lamont, and Patricia White, 165–171. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.

Snow, David A., and Leon Anderson. 1993. Down on their luck: A study of homeless street people . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Snow, David A., and Calvin Morrill. 1995. New ethnographies: Review symposium: A revolutionary handbook or a handbook for revolution? Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 24 (3): 341–349.

Strauss, Anselm L. 2003. Qualitative analysis for social scientists . 14th ed. Chicago: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, Anselm L., and Juliette M. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory . 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Swedberg, Richard. 2017. Theorizing in sociological research: A new perspective, a new departure? Annual Review of Sociology 43: 189–206.

Swedberg, Richard. 1990. The new 'Battle of Methods'. Challenge January–February 3 (1): 33–38.

Timmermans, Stefan, and Iddo Tavory. 2012. Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory 30 (3): 167–186.

Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne. 2012. Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research. A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research 12 (6): 630–644.

Valsiner, Jaan. 2000. Data as representations. Contextualizing qualitative and quantitative research strategies. Social Science Information 39 (1): 99–113.

Weber, Max. 1904. 1949. Objectivity’ in social Science and social policy. Ed. Edward A. Shils and Henry A. Finch, 49–112. New York: The Free Press.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Financial Support for this research is given by the European Research Council, CEV (263699). The authors are grateful to Susann Krieglsteiner for assistance in collecting the data. The paper has benefitted from the many useful comments by the three reviewers and the editor, comments by members of the Uppsala Laboratory of Economic Sociology, as well as Jukka Gronow, Sebastian Kohl, Marcin Serafin, Richard Swedberg, Anders Vassenden and Turid Rødne.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Patrik Aspers

Seminar for Sociology, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrik Aspers .

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

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

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aspers, P., Corte, U. What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research. Qual Sociol 42 , 139–160 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

Download citation

Published : 27 February 2019

Issue Date : 01 June 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-019-9413-7

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

• Qualitative research
• Epistemology
• Philosophy of science
• Phenomenology
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Unstructured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples

Unstructured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 4 May 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on 10 October 2022.

An unstructured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking participants questions to collect data on a topic. Also known as non-directive interviewing , unstructured interviews do not have a set pattern and questions are not arranged in advance.

In research, unstructured interviews are usually qualitative in nature, and they can be very helpful for social science or humanities research focusing on personal experiences.

An unstructured interview can be a particularly useful exploratory research tool. Known for being very informal and flexible, they can yield captivating responses from your participants.

• 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.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Table of contents

What is an unstructured interview, when to use an unstructured interview, advantages of unstructured interviews, disadvantages of unstructured interviews, unstructured interview questions, how to conduct an unstructured interview, how to analyse an unstructured interview, presenting your results, frequently asked questions about unstructured interviews.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, with room for spontaneity. In contrast to a structured interview , the questions and the order in which they are presented are not set. Instead, the interview proceeds based on the participant’s previous answers.

Unstructured interviews are open-ended.This lack of structure can help you gather detailed information on your topic, while still allowing you to observe patterns in the analysis stage.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

It can be challenging to know what type of interview best fits your subject matter. Unstructured interviews can be very challenging to conduct and may not always be the best fit for your research question . Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints.
• You are seeking descriptive data, and are ready to ask questions that will deepen and contextualise your initial thoughts and hypotheses
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, thoughts, or lived experiences

Even more so than in structured or semi-structured interviews, it is critical that you remain organised and develop a system for keeping track of participant responses. Since the questions are not set beforehand, the data collection and analysis become more complex.

Differences between different types of interviews

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

Unstructured interviews have a few advantages compared to other types of interviews.

Very flexible

Respondents are more at ease, reduced risk of bias, more detail and nuance.

Unstructured interviews also have a few downsides compared to other data collection methods.

Low generalisability and reliability

Risk of leading questions, very time-consuming, risk of low internal validity.

It can be challenging to ask unstructured interview questions that get you the information you seek without biasing your responses. You will have to rely on the flow of the conversation and the cues you pick up from your participants.

Here are a few tips:

• Since you won’t be designing set questions ahead of time, it’s important to feel sufficiently comfortable with your topic that you can come up with questions spontaneously.
• Write yourself a guide with notes about your topic and what you’re seeking to investigate or gain from your interviews, so you have notes to refer back to.
• Try to ask questions that encourage your participant to answer at length. Avoid closed-ended questions that can be answered with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no.’
• Relatedly, focus on ‘how’ questions rather than ‘why’ questions to help put your participants at ease and avoid any feelings of defensiveness or anxiety.
• Consider beginning the interview with an icebreaker or a “freebie” question, to start on a relaxed and comfortable note before delving into the more sensitive topics.

Here are a few possibilities for how your conversation could proceed:

Conversation A: 

• Interviewer: Do you go to the gym? How often?
• Participant: I go to the gym 5 times per week.
• Interviewer: What feelings does going to the gym bring out in you?
• Participant: I don’t feel like myself unless I go to the gym.

Since the participant hinted that going to the gym is important for their mental health, proceed with questions in that vein, such as:

• You say you ‘don’t feel like yourself.’ Can you elaborate?
• If you have to skip a gym day, how does that make you feel?
• Is there anything else that makes you feel the way going to the gym does?

Conversation B:

• Participant: No, I hate the gym.

Since the participant seems to have strong feelings against the gym, you can probe deeper.

• What makes you feel this way about the gym?
• What do you like to do instead?
• Do your feelings about the gym reflect on your feelings about exercise in general?

Once you’ve determined that an unstructured interview is the right fit for your research topic , you can proceed with the following steps.

Step 1: Set your goals and foundations

As you conceptualise your research question, consider starting with some guiding questions, such as:

• What are you trying to learn or achieve from an unstructured interview specifically?
• Why is an unstructured interview the best fit for your research, as opposed to a different type of interview or another research method?
• What is the guiding force behind your research? What topic will serve as the foundation for your unscripted and follow-up questions?

While you do not need to plan your questions ahead of time for an unstructured interview, this does not mean that no advanced planning is needed. Unstructured interviews actually require extensive planning ahead to ensure that the interview stage will be fruitful.

• Perhaps you have been studying it for quite some time, or you have previously conducted another type of research on a similar topic.
• Maybe you are seeking a bit more detail or nuance to confirm or challenge past results, or you are interested in delving deeper into a particular question that arose from past research.

Once you are feeling really solid about your research question, you can start brainstorming categories of questions you may ask. You can start with one broad, overarching question and brainstorm what paths the conversation could take.

Step 2: Assemble your participants

There are a few sampling methods you can use to recruit your interview participants, such as:

• Voluntary response sampling : For example, posting flyers in the dining hall and seeing who answers.
• Stratified sampling of a particular age, race, or gender identity that is relevant to your research.
• Convenience sampling of other students at your university, colleagues or friends.

Step 3: Decide on your setting

You should decide ahead of time whether your interview will be conducted in person, over the phone, or via video conferencing.

In-person, phone, or video interviews each have their own advantages and disadvantages.

• In general, live interviews can lead to nervousness or interviewer effects, where the respondent feels pressured to respond in a manner they perceive will please you.
• Videoconferencing specifically can feel awkward or stilted, which could affect your results. However, your participant may be more comfortable in their own home.
• Not being face to face with respondents, such as in a phone interview, could lead to more honest answers. However, there could be environmental conditions or distractions on the participant side that could affect their responses.
• Consent to video or audio recording
• Signature of a confidentiality agreement
• Signature of an agreement to anonymise or pseudonymise data

Step 4: Conduct your interviews

As you conduct your interviews, pay special attention to any environmental conditions that could bias your responses. This includes noises, temperature, and setting, but also your body language. Be careful to moderate your tone of voice and any responses to avoid interviewer effects.

Remember that one of the biggest challenges with unstructured interviews is to keep your questions neutral and unbiased. Strive for open-ended phrasing, and allow your participants to set the pace, asking follow-up questions that flow naturally from their last answer.

After you’re finished conducting your interviews, you move into the analysis phase. Don’t forget to assign each participant a pseudonym (such as a number or letter) to be sure you stay organised.

First, transcribe your recorded interviews. You can then conduct content or thematic analysis to create your categories, seeking patterns that stand out to you among your responses and testing your hypotheses .

Transcribing interviews

The transcription process can be quite lengthy for unstructured interviews due to their more detailed nature. One decision that can save you quite a bit of time before you get started is whether you will be conducting verbatim transcription or intelligent verbatim transcription.

• If you consider that laughter, hesitations, or filler words like ‘umm’ affect your analysis and research conclusions, you should conduct verbatim transcription and include them.
• If not, intelligent verbatim transcription allows you to exclude fillers and fix any grammar issues in your transcription. Intelligent verbatim transcription can save you some time in this step.

Transcribing has the added benefit of being a great opportunity for cleaning your data . While you listen, you can take notes of questions or inconsistencies that come up.

Note that in some cases, your supervisor may ask you to add the finished transcriptions in the appendix of your paper.

Coding unstructured interviews

After you’re finished transcribing, you can begin your thematic or content analysis . Here, you separate words, patterns, or recurring responses that stand out to you into labels or categories for later analysis. This process is called ‘coding’.

Due to the open-ended nature of unstructured interviews, you will most likely proceed with thematic analysis, rather than content analysis. In thematic analysis, you draw preliminary conclusions about your participants by identifying common topics, ideas, or patterns in their responses.

• After you have familiarised yourself sufficiently with your responses, you can separate them into different codes or labels.
• However, codes can be a bit too specific or niche for robust analysis. You can proceed by grouping similar codes into broader themes.
• After identifying your themes, be sure to double-check your responses to ensure that the themes you chose appropriately represent your data.

Analysing unstructured interviews

Once you’re confident with your preliminary thoughts, you can take either an inductive or a deductive approach in your analysis.

• An inductive approach is more open-ended, allowing your data to determine your themes.
• A deductive approach is the opposite, and involves investigating whether your data confirm preconceived themes or ideas.

Thematic analysis is quite subjective, which can lead to issues with the reliability of your results. The unstructured nature of this type of interview leads to greater dependence on your judgement and interpretations. Be extra vigilant about remaining objective here.

After your data analysis, you’re ready to combine your findings into a research paper .

• Your methodology section describes your data collection process (in this case, describing your unstructured interview process) and explains how you justified and conceptualised your analysis.
• Your discussion and results sections usually describe each of your coded categories, and give you the opportunity to showcase your argument.
• You can then conclude with your main takeaways and avenues for further study.
• Since unstructured interviews are predominantly exploratory in nature, you can add suggestions for future research in the discussion section .

Example of interview methodology for a research paper

Let’s say you are a history student particularly interested in the history of the town around your campus. The town has a long history dating back to the early 1600s, but town census data shows that many long-term residents have been moving away in recent years.

You identify a few potential reasons for this shift:

• People are moving away because there are better opportunities in the closest big city.
• The university has been aggressively purchasing real estate to build more student housing.
• The university has long been the main source of jobs for the town, and education budget cuts have led to a hiring freeze.
• The cost of living in the area has skyrocketed in recent years, and long-time residents can no longer afford their property taxes.

Anecdotally, you hypothesise that the increased cost of living is the predominant factor in driving away long-time residents. However, you cannot rule out the other options, specifically the lack of job options coupled with the university’s expansionist aims.

You feel very comfortable with this topic and oral histories in general. Since it is exploratory in nature but has the potential to become sensitive or emotional, you decide to conduct unstructured interviews with long-term residents of your town. Multi-generational residents are of particular interest.

To find the right mix of participants, you post in the Facebook group for town residents, as well as in the town’s NextDoor forum. You also post flyers in local cafés and even some postboxes.

Once you’ve assembled your participants, it’s time to proceed with your interviews. Consider starting out with an icebreaker, such as:

• What is your favorite thing about this town?
• Tell me about a memory of the town that you have that’s particularly special.

You can then proceed with the interview, asking follow-up questions relevant to your participants’ responses, probing their family history, ties to the community, or any stories they have to share – whether funny, touching, or sentimental.

Establishing rapport with your participants helps you delve into the reasoning behind the choice to stay or leave, and competing thoughts and feelings they may have as the interview goes on. Remember to try to structure it like a conversation, to put them more at ease with the emotional topics.

• Has increased cost of living led you to consider leaving the area? → The phrasing implies that you, the interviewer, think this is the case. This could bias your respondents, incentivising them to answer affirmatively as well.
• Are there any factors that would lead you to consider leaving the area? → This phrasing ensures the participant is giving their own opinion, and may even yield some surprising responses that enrich your analysis.

After conducting your interviews and transcribing your data, you can then conduct thematic analysis, coding responses into different categories. Since you began your research with several theories for why residents may be leaving that all seemed plausible, you would use the inductive approach.

After identifying the relevant themes from your data, you can draw inferences and conclusions. Your results section usually addresses each theme or pattern you found, describing each in turn, as well as how often you came across them in your analysis.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview, but it is not always the best fit for your research topic.

Unstructured interviews are best used when:

• You are an experienced interviewer and have a very strong background in your research topic, since it is challenging to ask spontaneous, colloquial questions
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. While you may have developed hypotheses, you are open to discovering new or shifting viewpoints through the interview process.
• Your research depends on forming connections with your participants and making them feel comfortable revealing deeper emotions, lived experiences, or thoughts

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.

There are various approaches to qualitative data analysis , but they all share five steps in common:

• Prepare and organise your data.
• Review and explore your data.
• Develop a data coding system.
• Assign codes to the data.
• Identify recurring themes.

The specifics of each step depend on the focus of the analysis. Some common approaches include textual analysis , thematic analysis , and discourse analysis .

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

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

Cite this Scribbr article

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

George, T. (2022, October 10). Unstructured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 14 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/unstructured-interviews/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Not all data are created equal; some are structured, but most of them are unstructured. Structured and unstructured data are sourced, collected and scaled in different ways and each one resides in a different type of database.

In this article, we will take a deep dive into both types so that you can get the most out of your data.

Structured data—typically categorized as quantitative data—is highly organized and easily decipherable by  machine learning algorithms .  Developed by IBM® in 1974 , structured query language (SQL) is the programming language used to manage structured data. By using a  relational (SQL) database , business users can quickly input, search and manipulate structured data.

Examples of structured data include dates, names, addresses, credit card numbers, among others. Their benefits are tied to ease of use and access, while liabilities revolve around data inflexibility:

• Easily used by machine learning (ML) algorithms:  The specific and organized architecture of structured data eases the manipulation and querying of ML data.
• Easily used by business users:  Structured data do not require an in-depth understanding of different types of data and how they function. With a basic understanding of the topic relative to the data, users can easily access and interpret the data.
• Accessible by more tools:  Since structured data predates unstructured data, there are more tools available for using and analyzing structured data.
• Limited usage:  Data with a predefined structure can only be used for its intended purpose, which limits its flexibility and usability.
• Limited storage options:  Structured data are usually stored in data storage systems with rigid schemas (for example, “ data warehouses ”). Therefore, changes in data requirements necessitate an update of all structured data, which leads to a massive expenditure of time and resources.
• OLAP :  Performs high-speed, multidimensional data analysis from unified, centralized data stores.
• SQLite : (link resides outside ibm.com)  Implements a self-contained,  serverless , zero-configuration, transactional relational database engine.
• MySQL :  Embeds data into mass-deployed software, particularly mission-critical, heavy-load production system.
• PostgreSQL :  Supports SQL and JSON querying as well as high-tier programming languages (C/C+, Java,  Python , among others.).
• Customer relationship management (CRM):  CRM software runs structured data through analytical tools to create datasets that reveal customer behavior patterns and trends.
• Online booking:  Hotel and ticket reservation data (for example, dates, prices, destinations, among others.) fits the “rows and columns” format indicative of the pre-defined data model.
• Accounting:  Accounting firms or departments use structured data to process and record financial transactions.

Unstructured data, typically categorized as qualitative data, cannot be processed and analyzed through conventional data tools and methods. Since unstructured data does not have a predefined data model, it is best managed in  non-relational (NoSQL) databases . Another way to manage unstructured data is to use  data lakes  to preserve it in raw form.

The importance of unstructured data is rapidly increasing.  Recent projections  (link resides outside ibm.com) indicate that unstructured data is over 80% of all enterprise data, while 95% of businesses prioritize unstructured data management.

Examples of unstructured data include text, mobile activity, social media posts, Internet of Things (IoT) sensor data, among others. Their benefits involve advantages in format, speed and storage, while liabilities revolve around expertise and available resources:

• Native format:  Unstructured data, stored in its native format, remains undefined until needed. Its adaptability increases file formats in the database, which widens the data pool and enables data scientists to prepare and analyze only the data they need.
• Fast accumulation rates:  Since there is no need to predefine the data, it can be collected quickly and easily.
• Data lake storage:  Allows for massive storage and pay-as-you-use pricing, which cuts costs and eases scalability.
• Requires expertise:  Due to its undefined or non-formatted nature, data science expertise is required to prepare and analyze unstructured data. This is beneficial to data analysts but alienates unspecialized business users who might not fully understand specialized data topics or how to utilize their data.
• Specialized tools:  Specialized tools are required to manipulate unstructured data, which limits product choices for data managers.
• MongoDB :  Uses flexible documents to process data for cross-platform applications and services.
• DynamoDB :  (link resides outside ibm.com) Delivers single-digit millisecond performance at any scale through built-in security, in-memory caching and backup and restore.
• Hadoop :  Provides distributed processing of large data sets using simple programming models and no formatting requirements.
• Azure :  Enables agile cloud computing for creating and managing apps through Microsoft’s data centers.
• Data mining :  Enables businesses to use unstructured data to identify consumer behavior, product sentiment and purchasing patterns to better accommodate their customer base.
• Predictive data analytics :  Alert businesses of important activity ahead of time so they can properly plan and accordingly adjust to significant market shifts.
• Chatbots :  Perform text analysis to route customer questions to the appropriate answer sources.

While structured (quantitative) data gives a “birds-eye view” of customers, unstructured (qualitative) data provides a deeper understanding of customer behavior and intent. Let’s explore some of the key areas of difference and their implications:

• Sources:  Structured data is sourced from GPS sensors, online forms, network logs, web server logs,  OLTP systems , among others; whereas unstructured data sources include email messages, word-processing documents, PDF files, and others.
• Forms:  Structured data consists of numbers and values, whereas unstructured data consists of sensors, text files, audio and video files, among others.
• Models:  Structured data has a predefined data model and is formatted to a set data structure before being placed in data storage (for example, schema-on-write), whereas unstructured data is stored in its native format and not processed until it is used (for example, schema-on-read).
• Storage:  Structured data is stored in tabular formats (for example, excel sheets or SQL databases) that require less storage space. It can be stored in data warehouses, which makes it highly scalable. Unstructured data, on the other hand, is stored as media files or NoSQL databases, which require more space. It can be stored in data lakes, which makes it difficult to scale.
• Uses:  Structured data is used in machine learning (ML) and drives its algorithms, whereas unstructured data is used in  natural language processing  (NLP) and text mining.

Semi-structured data (for example, JSON, CSV, XML) is the “bridge” between structured and unstructured data. It does not have a predefined data model and is more complex than structured data, yet easier to store than unstructured data.

Semi-structured data uses “metadata” (for example, tags and semantic markers) to identify specific data characteristics and scale data into records and preset fields. Metadata ultimately enables semi-structured data to be better cataloged, searched and analyzed than unstructured data.

• Example of metadata usage:  An online article displays a headline, a snippet, a featured image, image alt-text, slug, among others, which helps differentiate one piece of web content from similar pieces.
• Example of semi-structured data vs. structured data:  A tab-delimited file containing customer data versus a database containing CRM tables.
• Example of semi-structured data vs. unstructured data:  A tab-delimited file versus a list of comments from a customer’s Instagram.

Recent developments in  artificial intelligence  (AI) and machine learning (ML) are driving the future wave of data, which is enhancing business intelligence and advancing industrial innovation. In particular, the data formats and models that are covered in this article are helping business users to do the following:

• Analyze digital communications for compliance:  Pattern recognition and email threading analysis software that can search email and chat data for potential noncompliance.
• Track high-volume customer conversations in social media:  Text analytics and sentiment analysis that enables monitoring of marketing campaign results and identifying online threats.
• Gain new marketing intelligence:  ML analytics tools that can quickly cover massive amounts of data to help businesses analyze customer behavior.

Furthermore, smart and efficient usage of data formats and models can help you with the following:

• Understand customer needs at a deeper level to better serve them
• Create more focused and targeted marketing campaigns
• Track current metrics and create new ones
• Create better product opportunities and offerings
• Reduce operational costs

Whether you are a seasoned data expert or a novice business owner, being able to handle all forms of data is conducive to your success. By using structured, semi-structured and unstructured data options, you can perform optimal data management that will ultimately benefit your mission.

Get the latest tech insights and expert thought leadership in your inbox.

To better understand data storage options for whatever kind of data best serves you, check out IBM Cloud Databases

Get our newsletters and topic updates that deliver the latest thought leadership and insights on emerging trends.

No products in the cart.

Coding the Real World: Understanding Real-World Evidence in Healthcare with NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software

Think about the last time you picked up a prescription from the pharmacy. If you read the information in the package insert, you may have assumed that the data about reported side effects and other patient outcomes was all drawn from randomized controlled trials. This may not be the case. Instead, you may have been reaping the benefits of a form of qualitative research output known as real-world evidence (RWE).

In the webinar Coding the Real World: What Is Real-World Evidence in Health and Why Is NVivo Critical? , three senior researchers from Cerner Enviza, an Oracle Company, explained why RWE is increasingly critical in drug development and healthcare research. They also described how coding qualitative research with NVivo helps generate robust analyses from unstructured data that communicate insights to research teams, journal publishers, regulators, and commercial stakeholders.

Representing Cerner Enviza were:

• Kathleen Beusterien, MPH – Principal, RWE
• Colleen Welsh-Allen, RN – Qualitative Research Subject Matter Expert in the U.S. for Commercial, RWE, and Regulatory
• Rebecca Nash, PhD – Business Leader, RWE

In this article, we’ll highlight the main discussion points – from their research methods to using NVivo coding software for qualitative data analysis or QDA.

Defining Real-World Evidence and Its Applications in Healthcare Research

“If you're like me, a qualitatively trained social scientist,” said Dr. Rebecca Nash, “the term ‘real world’ seems a little bit funny, because isn't everything the real world?” However, she explained, RWE within the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries simply means any evidence that isn’t gathered within the context of a randomized controlled trial. RWE can also mean any evidence that isn’t generated by a lab test or imaging technique, such as a blood analysis or MRI.

Real world evidence examples in the areas of epidemiology, natural history of disease, diagnosis and treatment pathways, risk management and effectiveness, and patient outcomes, and cost of disease.

Usually, RWE is gathered through qualitative interviews focused on understanding patient preferences or health outcomes – any change in their status following a treatment or procedure. “Rigorous qualitative analysis is so important in bringing forth the voice of the patient,” said Kathleen Beusterien.

Insights drawn from RWE complement randomized controlled trials and help inform drug development at every stage. RWE can influence clinical trial design, regulatory compliance reporting, treatment or diagnosis pathways, and marketing. It also informs the prescription medication inserts that explain side effects which can’t be measured with lab tests like pain, fatigue, or symptoms of depression.

Alt text: Timeline showing where real world qualitative data and research may happen within the product lifecycle. Phases before the launch include early development, trial design and execution, regulatory submissions and after the launch include medical, value, and access, and commercial.

The Cerner Enviza team presented three examples of how RWE helped researchers understand patient needs and experiences during drug development:

• Interviews with the families of pediatric patients coping with a rare genetic disorder called neurofibromatosis type 1 gave researchers insight into the symptoms that potential therapies could help treat.
• RWE from parents of children with severe allergies helped researchers develop an interactive diagnosis pathway that explained how clinicians can help families move from the chaos of an initial attack to informed self-management of their child’s condition.
• After conducting qualitative research, development teams were better able to understand why diabetes patients preferred the nasal spray form of glucagon – a drug that stops potentially fatal hypoglycemic episodes – rather than the injectable form.

Qualitative Analysis and Research Methodologies for Gathering RWE

The Cerner Enviza team explained that while the FDA and other regulators increasingly accept or even require RWE about patient preferences or health outcomes, there are guidelines about how to conduct this kind of qualitative research. There are two main methodologies for capturing RWE in the healthcare or pharmaceutical context.

First, there is concept elicitation (CE). CE involves an open-ended, narrative-style one-to-one interview. “It's a fancy name for qualitative interview,” said Colleen Welsh-Allen. She went on to explain that these interviews can be conducted over the phone, in person, via an internet video tool such as Zoom, or in an online chat. In addition to yielding insight into patient needs and experiences, CE can also help inform the development of survey questions for quantitative studies.

The second methodology for gathering RWE is a cognitive interview. Cognitive interviewing as a methodology was developed in the 1980s , and is often required by federal agencies as a step in the development of a quantitative survey. In a cognitive interview, “we really are hoping to understand how a subject arrives at their answer,” explained Colleen Welsh-Allen. Researchers will ask patients to answer a question while explaining their reasoning. “We want to make sure that everybody has universal understanding of the intent of the question,” Welsh-Allen clarified.

After conducting qualitative research, it’s time to analyze it. That’s where NVivo comes in.

Coding in NVivo for Qualitative Research

Because healthcare and pharmaceutical research is subject to institutional review boards (IRBs, or research ethics committees), it’s required to have verbatim transcripts for all interviews conducted, to obtain counts, and to carry out rigorous coding of interviews. This may not always be required for qualitative research in other fields, but where necessary, it can be incredibly helpful to employ a qualitative data analysis tool for transcription, data visualization, and to analyze data in large quantities.

While it’s possible to analyze qualitative research in a variety of ways – for example, through discourse analysis or grounded theory methodologies – the Cerner Enviza team uses thematic analysis because it allows for a bottom-up approach that lets patient concerns or experiences emerge from the data.

NVivo’s coding features allow for robust thematic analysis and speeds up the coding process with user-driven machine-powered autocoding . This automated tool for qualitative coding of textual data saves valuable time and can reveal themes and sentiments that might otherwise have gone unnoticed.

With NVivo, RWE researchers can:

• Tease out repeated patterns and construct themes by analyzing qualitative interview transcripts.
• Indicate whether qualitative data is spontaneous/unaided versus prompted from interviewer questions.

NVivo can also generate a range of visualizations, such as saturation grids, which help analysts determine whether follow-up interviews may be necessary. Plus, with powerful NVivo Transcription , researchers can import audio and video files to produce verbatim transcriptions with 90% accuracy.

The Cerner Enviza team was also able to work together efficiently with the help of NVivo Collaboration Cloud . With this tool, they could securely share data and insights to the same project and update, code, and analyze research in real-time.

NVivo’s rigor and adaptability makes it possible for research that includes RWE to meet the standards of medical and academic journals, conference organizers, and regulators. With text analysis, content analysis, and sentiment analysis supported by NVivo, teams can gather RWE that gives patients a voice in the treatments and interventions that can advance healthcare.

Learn More About RWE and NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software (QDA Software)

Interested in watching the full presentation on using coding software for qualitative research and RWE in drug development? Fill out the form on this page to access the full webinar recording and handout materials.

Start exploring what’s possible in your research project with NVivo by requesting a 14-day free trial of the most cited qualitative analysis tool today.

REQUEST A FREE 14 DAY TRIAL OF NVIVO

Recent Articles