GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING RESEARCH INTERVIEWS

The interview context: the principal purpose of the interview is to elicit information from the interviewee. In this respect, it is not like a normal conversation as the interviewer doesn’t communicate his or her perspective or engage in genuine two-way exchange of ideas. But it is important to try and establish a good rapport with the interviewee which puts him or her at ease. So the interviewer may make comments which make the situation feel more relaxed.

Eliciting information: avoid simply asking each question on the interview schedule in turn; the schedule questions are a starting point. The worst interviews are merely oral questionnaires. A good interview allows the interviewee to give additional detail and information about the issue under investigation. Follow up the answers given and pursue the ideas. Prompts such as ‘what makes you think that?’ ‘Can you explain that in more detail?’ ‘Why?’ ‘Could you explain that again?’ are often useful.

Listening skills: good interviewers have excellent listening skills. They pick up on interesting words and phrases and go back to the interviewee and develop them. It is often quite helpful to repeat back to the interviewee significant words and phrases they have used and probe what they mean.

Leading questions: it is very easy to ask leading questions or to give the interviewee an answer. Always try to get the interviewee to say more, rather than attempting to tell them what they think or finishing a sentence for them. Helpful prompts for this are ‘Tell me what you mean by that?’ and ‘Can you say a bit more about that?’

Time: a short wait for an answer can feel like a long wait in an interview situation. But remember the interviewee may be thinking or considering the question. Give the interviewee time to answer and don’t be afraid of silence. This does need sensitive judging, however, as too long a wait can make the interviewee feel under pressure or even intimidated.

Piloting your Interviews:

It is enormously valuable if you can pilot your interview, both to test out how well your interview schedule works, and to hone your interviewing skills. Find a willing victim and audio record the interview. At the end of the interview, ask your interviewee if there were any questions they did not really understand, or if there was anything you did as an interviewer that was unhelpful. Listen to your audio recording twice: firstly, focus on the interview schedule prompts and the interviewee’s responses. Are the questions eliciting the information you need, or are some being misunderstood? Then listen again, just focusing on your interviewing skills. How well do you follow up what the interviewee says with further questions that elicit richer responses? Do you ask any leading questions, or dominate, or steer the conversation in any way? Do you keep the interview focused or go off on tangents? This piloting and reflection will enable you to improve the sharpness of your interview schedule and your interview technique.

Below are some snippets from interviews which exemplify different aspects of interview technique.

LOOKING AT INTERVIEWS

Some leading questions and statements: to be avoided!

S:I’m the average student. I’m stuck on achieving my goals. I work to achieve it also but I’m

not as motivated as some other people who do much better than me.

Int:Why aren’t you a 9 on the scale?

S:Don’t know.

Int:Supposing you started to work much harder what would your friends say? You don’t think

they’d put you off at all?

S:No, they wouldn’t.

The above extract shows the interviewer suggested to the interviewee what the answer might be. See the words in red.

Int:And do you think that some people have more chance than others when it comes to

getting a good job?

S:No, not necessarily. Before, it used to be like that, but nowadays, as long as you have a good education…

Int:That's all that matters?

S:Yes

Int:And you don't think colour comes into it particularly. or your social background doesn't

make much difference?

S:It hardly happens now.

In the above extract the interviewer firstly leads too much by finishing off the sentence for the interviewee; then asks a question which is quite heavily leading.

INt:So if the teacher made you work with a boy or with a girl...?

S1:Yeah it wouldn't be a problem.

S2:I wouldn't mind unless it was some particular person you didn't like, but it doesn't really matter cause...

IntLSo it's not the gender that's important, it's whether you actually like the person?

S3:Yeah.

Again, here the interviewer sums up for the interviewee, giving them an answer.

Some good interview practice:

KBut I've always liked history and I just find it so interesting and English I find it quite therapeutic sometimes.

Int:Yeah, in what way therapeutic?

KJust, there's nothing right and there's nothing wrong and it's something you've either got or you haven't and I think I find it quite enjoyable.

Int:So do you like that idea of subjects where there's not a right and a wrong?

KYeah.

SYeah where you're allowed to make your own decisions, it's like history as well, like the same for that.

Int:Yeah where as the science that you picked out is much less...

SThere's only one right answer.

In this extract the interviewer pursues the idea of English being therapeutic, and then reiterates what the interviewee has said to check it. Next the interviewer opens up a sentence which the interviewee finishes. Arguably, this last prompt would have been even better without the ‘much less’ which is verging towards being leading, but at least its open-endedness allows the interviewee to frame the response in her own words.

Int:Ok, writing, do you enjoy writing?

CDepends what the subject’s about.

Int:Yeah explain that a little bit more then, when would you enjoy it?

CI would enjoy it if it was an essay with an interesting title where there's lots to write about, but if it's a title where there's not much to write about you kind of like, you don't know where to go and you get really bored with it.

Int:Yeah. So when you feel you've actually got something to say, you find it easier to write.

CYeah.

This is a good example of how not simply accepting the first response can elicit much more useful information. The answer ‘it depends’ is not very illuminating, but the invitation to explain more gives the interviewee the chance to explain in more detail – which gets more to the heart of the issue. The interviewer then reiterates this to check its accuracy.

Note: there is a fine line between reiteration to confirm and a leading comment!

INT:Yeah if you think about your classes that you're in, can you see that any groups within the class are different types of workers or have different types of attitudes to work?

SYeah.

INT:Can you describe some of them?

SWell there's almost in every lesson there's always a group who work heads down non stop, the whole lesson. And then you'll have the people who are actually mixing the two working hard but enjoying themselves and talking at the same time, and you have a group who are not working, just talking for the whole time.

KYeah.

INT:Would you agree with that?

KDefinitely.

INT:And are there any words, do you call those people anything in the different groups, are there any words to describe them?

KJust the keen people and the not so keen people really.

INT:And which group would you put yourselves in?

KI’d say I was in the middle.

SYeah I’d say I was in the middle as well.

INT:Would other people say you were in the middle or would they say you were in the...

SI think a few people would put me in the first group to be honest.

KIt depends though doesn't it, people who keep their heads down would say probably in the middle, those that don't would probably say you're a boffin that works and all this.

INT:Boffin, is that a word that's used about the hard workers?

This is a good example of a probing interview sequence where the interviewer tries to find out attitudes to work habits in school. Notice the number of probing questions and the way the interviewer avoids introducing the word ‘boffin’ – it then comes up naturally.

INT:Do you think that boys and girls learn in the same way, your electronics teacher said something about what was it, that boys don't have to write it down cause they keep it in their heads, but girls do?

SYeah boys are more practical in a sense cause they do everything with their hands, they prefer hands on kind of way of learning, but I think girls, it might not be like this but... What was I going to say?

KOrganisation Simon!

INT:So would you think that girls, you're saying that boys are practical and hands on, the opposite of that would be theoretical or hands off, do you think girls like a theoretical hands off approach?

KI think, well not quite, I think we like to be on top of everything, we like to make sure that everything’s done and that we know what we’re doing.

INT:Now that's linked you what you, I mean you just said organisation a minute ago, that's linked to organisation isn't it? Are you saying you see girls as being more organised than boys?

KIn some cases, yeah.

SYeah I’d go with that as well.

INT:Are you organised?

SWith homework I am cause I always meet the deadline, I think that's come from working for the paper, but I've always got to meet that deadline.

INT:And do you see other boys in your group who are disorganised?

SOh yeah, yes.

INT:What about girls, are there any girls that are disorganised?

KWell there's always a few but I have to say not as many as the boys.

INT:So it's a numbers thing, there are more boys than girls who are disorganised?

KYeah.

Here the interviewer tries to find out exactly what the interviewees mean when they say boys prefer practical learning. Notice it’s one of the interviewees here who finishes a sentence for the other one!