- Email: [email protected]
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured R. Longhurst, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand & 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Glossary Cold Calling This is calling on people (usually strangers) without any prior approach or contact being made in the first instance to ask if they would be prepared to be interviewed. Interviewers often get a high refusal rate using this approach. Positionality It describes a person’s position within the midst of complex, shifting and overlapping political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, gendered, and racialized processes. How people are positioned in relation to various contexts of power affects the way they understand the world. Some geographers have argued that reflecting carefully on and declaring one’s positionality may lead to more sound research because it becomes apparent that all knowledge is partial. Recruiting on Site It involves making contact with potential participants at a site or location that is relevant in some way to the research, for example, if someone was researching the culture of rugby they might attempt to recruit participants at a rugby club and/or field. Reflexivity Critical and conscious introspection and analytical scrutiny of oneself as a researcher. Reflexivity involves examining one’s own practice in order to gain new insights into research. Situated Knowledge A notion that challenges the idea that knowledge is simply ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. Instead, knowledge is ‘embodied’, that is, it is made by people who are situated within particular contexts. Snowballing A technique used by researchers whereby one contact, or participant, is used to help recruit another, who in turn puts the researcher in touch with another. The number of participants soon increases rapidly or ‘snowballs’. Triangulation It involves using a variety of methods to collect data as opposed to relying on one single form of evidence as the basis for findings.
they feel are significant. The interviewer does not keep a tight rein on the interview but instead allows the interviewee, through the use of open-ended questions, to explore the subject in as much depth and from as many angles as they please. Interviews are usually conducted individually but can also be conducted in pairs or groups. In-depth, semi-structured interviews are probably one of, if not the most commonly used qualitative method in the discipline of human geography. Geographers have used in-depth, semi-structured interviews to collect data on a huge array of subjects, including gay pride parades, merchant banking, and geography field trips to name just three. They have also reflected in great depth on the use of this method. At the level of research design geographers have considered issues such as who is interviewed, what questions they are asked, how to select and recruit participants, where to meet, how to record and transcribe interviews, and how to analyze data. Geographers have also considered many of the ethical, political, and epistemological issues surrounding the use of in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviewing takes a number of different forms. At one end of a continuum are structured interviews in which the interviewer asks a list of prescribed questions (these questions are always asked in the same way and the same order). In structured interviews respondents are discouraged from deviating from the questions. At the other end of the continuum are unstructured interviews. In unstructured interviews respondents are encouraged to direct the conversation instead of the interviewer. Indepth, semi-structured interviews sit somewhere in the middle of this continuum. They involve directing respondents to some degree mainly by talking and listening to people but in ways that are self-conscious, orderly, and partially structured. However, in-depth, semi-structured interviews are more than simply chats to people. It can take days, even weeks, to get prepared to conduct several interviews. Background reading, formulating questions, and contacting interviewees to set up appointments can be demanding and time consuming.
Introduction In-depth, semi-structured interviews are verbal interchanges where one person, the interviewer, attempts to obtain information from another person by asking questions. Although the interviewer prepares a list of predetermined questions, in-depth, semi-structured interviews tend to unfold in a conversational manner. This offers participants the opportunity to explore issues
580
Conducting In-Depth, Semi-Structured Interviews In-depth, semi-structured interviews can be used as a stand-alone method or in conjunction with another method or several other methods (this is sometimes refereed to as ‘triangulation’). The researcher needs to prepare questions, decide who to recruit to participate,
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
contact potential participants, choose a location, carry out the interviews, and transcribe the data, all the while being cognizant of the ethical issues and power relations involved in the research. Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that interviewing requires a high level of interpersonal skill. Interviewers need to be able to put people at ease. They also need to be able to ask questions in a straightforward but interesting way. Listening carefully to responses, acting in a way that develops trust and that is supportive, but without swaying participants to a particular position requires considerable skill. Before formulating interview questions researchers need to brief themselves fully in the subject area. Having done this it is important to create a list of themes or questions to ask participants. People who are very confident at interviewing sometimes equip themselves with just a list of themes. It is imperative to have a logical sequence of questions or themes which have been prepared in advance. Questions may be designed to elicit information that is ‘factual’, descriptive, provides background information, thoughtful and/or emotional. A combination of different types of questions can be effective depending on the research topic. Researchers tend to begin with a question that participants are likely to feel comfortable answering. More difficult, sensitive, or thought-provoking questions are best left to the second half of the interview when participants are likely to be feeling more comfortable. It is useful for interviewers to be familiar with the questions so as not to break the flow of the interview by having to read them from a paper all the time. The next step is to select participants. Usually people are chosen on the basis of their experience related to the research topic. While the aim of many quantitative methods is to choose a random or representative sample, to be ‘objective’, and to be able to replicate the data, the aim of qualitative methods is to choose respondents who will help the researcher make sense of people’s experiences. Thinking about who to interview often prompts researchers to reflect on their own identity and how this might shape the interactions during the interviews (this point is expanded in the section ‘Ethical issues and power relations’). There are many strategies for recruiting participants for interviews. Sometimes researchers carry out a simple questionnaire survey to gather contextual information and include a request at the end asking respondents who are prepared to engage in a follow-up interview to provide their contact details. Sometimes researchers advertise for participants in local newspapers or on radio stations requesting interested parties to make contact. Other methods for recruiting participants for interviews are ‘cold calling’ and ‘recruiting on site’. After interviewing a participant it is common for researchers to ask the interviewee if they know others who might also be
581
interested in being involved in the research. This technique is refereed to as ‘snowballing’. Having selected and recruited participants it is then necessary to decide where to conduct the interview. Obviously place can make a significant difference to the way in which an interview unfolds. It is important that both the interviewer and interviewee feel comfortable. For this reason a relatively neutral setting can be good. If the interview is to be taped then it is also important that the interview is conducted somewhere that is relatively quiet, otherwise transcribing the tape is likely to prove difficult, if not impossible. When interviewing business people or officials from organizations or institutions it is common to interview them on their own premises. This is often easier logistically than attempting to meet in another location. An advantage of meeting a respondent at their workplace is that it is often very useful for a researcher to be in the environment that they are studying (assuming ‘work’ is the focus of the interview). A potential disadvantage is that the interviewee may feel uncomfortable speaking freely especially if they want to say negative things about their particular business, organization, or institution. It is not always possible to carry out in-depth, semi-structured interviews in an ideal setting but so long as it is relatively neutral, comfortable, quiet, and accessible for both parties then it is likely to prove successful. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews tend to last, on average, one h (but this can vary enormously). Busy people are reluctant to give up much more time than this and it is important not to overstay one’s welcome. If more time is required, an interviewer can ask the respondent if it is possible to arrange another interview for a later date. Having a second interview rather than one long interview can also provide the interviewer with an opportunity to begin analyzing the material from the first interview thereby returning to the second interview with more pertinent questions. Some researchers take notes when they conduct indepth, semi-structured interviews. Others audio–video record the interview which provides them with both an aural and a visual record. Most researchers, however, simply audio record the proceedings. The advantage of this over note taking is that the researcher can focus fully on the conversation as it unfolds instead of feeling pressure to try and record the participant’s comments in a notebook. A disadvantage of audiotaping is that some participants may be uncomfortable being taped. Taping can affect dramatically the way in which people feel they are able to tell stories about themselves and others. Regardless of whether an interviewer decides to tape the conversation or not, it is a good idea after the interview to document the general tone of the conversation, any important nonverbal cues, the key themes that emerged, and anything that might have been particularly
582
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
interesting or surprising during the interview. This helps the researcher begin the task of analyzing the data. If an interviewer does audiotape an interview it is helpful to transcribe the conversation as soon as possible after conducting it. Hearing the taped conversation when it is still foremost in one’s mind makes transcription much easier. Sometimes researchers use a variety of different transcription codes, for example, the starts of overlap in talk can be marked by a double oblique //; pauses can be marked with a dot in parenthesis (.); nonverbal actions, gestures, and facial expressions can be noted in square brackets; and loud exclamations can be noted in bold type face. Once transcripts have been completed the researcher begins the task of analyzing the data – determining the meaning in the information gathered in relation to the purpose of the research. Most researchers look for themes, commonalities, and patterns to try to make sense of the information. It can also be useful to think about the differences that emerge in the data, noting themes that run counter to, or contradict, those that are emerging. Some researchers employ computer-based programs (such as NUD*ist) to assist with the analysis of transcripts. Others use more ‘low-tech’ options such as marking significant words and phrases with highlighter pens. If more questions are raised that need to be clarified in order to serve the purpose of the study, then another in-depth, semi-structured interview may be warranted to examine the issue more comprehensively.
Strengths and Weaknesses of In-Depth, Semi-Structured Interviews Having addressed some of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of organizing and conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews I now discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of this method. A strength of the method is that it is helpful for delving into and attempting to understand complex behaviors, experiences, and opinions. Other methods such as observation, closed questionnaires, census data, and structured interviews do not allow for much discovery or probing. In-depth, semi-structured interviews, however, offer interviewers and interviewees time and space to explore issues thoroughly. The method is also useful for collecting a range of opinions on a topic. Sometimes interviews reveal consensus but often they illustrate that people of different ages, ethnicities, gender, and sexualities have diverse opinions and experiences and do not agree on many issues. Semi-structured, in-depth interviewing can prove particularly useful for investigating personal, sensitive, or confidential issues which informants might find difficult to disclose and discuss in a group interview or focus group. Such issues are also difficult if not impossible
to raise in a questionnaire. It is possible that some people might feel under too much scrutiny in a semi-structured, in-depth interview and be less willing to open up than in the relaxed atmosphere of a group, but a skilled interviewer is usually able to overcome this by establishing a good rapport and trust with the respondent. Most interviewees are forthcoming and eager to help out. Another strength of in-depth, semi-structured interviews is that potentially the method can be used in a way that shows respect for people. Interviewers usually indicate that they value the interviewee’s opinions (although complex ethical issues can arise when, for example, an interviewee expresses highly discriminatory opinions in the interview). This does not necessarily imply that researchers empower their interviewees because the fact remains that most research benefits the researcher far more than it does his or her interviewees. A weakness of the method is that it tends to be very time consuming. Formulating a schedule of questions and/or prompts, recruiting participants, organizing times and spaces in which to conduct interviews, and transcribing and analyzing interviews all add up to many hours of labor. Another weakness of the method is that interviewing can open up participants to feeling manipulated and betrayed (but also to feeling empowered). Interviewing relies upon intersubjectivity – people engaging with and positioning themselves in relation to each other. It depends upon human relationships and these relationships can be rewarding but also disappointing. These strengths and weaknesses illustrate that there are numerous ethical issues and power relations involved in conducing indepth, semi-structured interviews.
Ethical Issues and Power Relations Confidentiality and anonymity are two important ethical issues that have been discussed by geographers and others in relation to in-depth, semi-structured issues. Participants need to be guaranteed that all the data collected will remain secure under lock or on a computer database accessible by password only; that information supplied will remain confidential and participants will remain anonymous (unless they desire otherwise); and that participants have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without explanation. Most researchers offer to provide participants with a summary of the research results at the completion of the research project and to follow through on this pledge. Summaries can take the form of a hard copy or an electronic copy posted on a website. Another ethical issue that can arise when conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews is that an
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
interviewee may express sexist, racist, or other discriminatory views. It is often argued that researchers ought to listen, pay attention, and be nonjudgmental, but sometimes being nonjudgmental might reproduce and even legitimize an interviewees’ discrimination through complicity. Researchers need to think carefully about how to deal with such situations. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with these situations. Feminist, social, and cultural geographers in particular have made a useful contribution in this area. It cannot be assumed that interviewers will always be in a position of power over their interviewees. For example, a relatively young female graduate student might find herself in the position of interviewing a wealthy middle-aged businessman who expresses stridently discriminatory opinions. The young graduate at some points during the interview might find it difficult to know how to respond. Researchers also need to think carefully about how to interview in different cultural contexts. For example, ‘First World’ researchers investigating ‘Third World’ ‘subjects’ need to be highly sensitive to local codes of conduct. During interviews the interviewer and interviewee are likely to keep repositioning themselves with respect to the multiple roles and fractured identities that they take up. How people position themselves in relation to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, age, and so on during interviews has implications for the interview overall and for interpreting interview data. Over the past decade, taken-for-granted notions about who is an insider, who is an outsider, who has access to ‘authentic’ knowledge, and who can speak on a particular subject have been raised by geographers in relation to interviewing. Geographers have also discussed and debated the concepts of ‘positionality’ and ‘reflexivity’ in relation to interviewing. Positionality describes a person’s position within the midst of complex, shifting and overlapping political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, gendered, and racialized processes. How people are positioned within various contexts of power affects the way they understand the world. Reflexivity involves reflecting carefully on one’s position as a researcher and declaring one’s positionality in the work. The aim of this strategy is to make explicit the researcher’s role in knowledge production. It becomes evident in such research that knowledge is ‘situated’ and partial rather than neutral and universal. Knowledge is not neutral but created by people who occupy particular subject positions. Some argue, however, that acknowledging one’s positionality and being reflexive about the research is perhaps easier said than done. Questions have been raised about how possible it is to fully understand ourselves as researchers, the researched, and the research context. While researcher reflexivity may be a useful goal, examining our own practice in order to gain new insights into research practice and knowledge production may be difficult to achieve.
583
Clearly there are many ethical issues and power relations that need to be teased out when conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews. In-depth, semi-structured interviews now appear to be orthodox in human geography. They are no longer slighted as ‘soft methods’ (in fact, there is a long tradition in human geography – throughout the twentieth century – of researchers ‘talking to people’). There are, however, a number of other qualitative methods that although they share a great deal in common with in-depth, semistructured interviews still seem to be reasonably poorly regarded in the discipline. Other qualitative methods such as focus groups, group interviews, ethnography, auto-ethnography, autobiography, discourse analysis, and visual analysis still at times struggle for legitimacy in some fields such as economic and political geography. Overall, though, it seems that the discipline may be entering a period of more mature evaluation and reflection on qualitative methods and this has in part been spurred by geographers’ extensive use of in-depth, semistructured interviews.
Conclusion In-depth, semi-structured interviews are a commonly used method in geographical research. The method involves talking with people – it relies on a reasonably informal interaction between interviewees and interviewers. In-depth, semi-structured interviews are useful for investigating complex behaviors, opinions and emotions, and for collecting a diversity of experiences. The method does not offer researchers a route to ‘the truth’ but it does offer a route to partial insights into what people do and think. Sometimes researchers rely upon in-depth, semi-structured interviews as a stand-alone method; sometimes they are used in conjunction with other methods. In-depth, semi-structured interviews make a significant contribution to geographic research especially now that debates about meaning, identity, subjectivity, politics, knowledge, power, and representation are high on many geographers’ agendas. Critically examining the construction of geographical knowledge as partial and situated has led to an interest in developing methodological strategies, such as in-depth, semi-structured interviews, that have potential for raising questions about researcher reflexivity, power relations, and ‘different’ ways of writing and knowing. See also: Embodied Knowing; Emotional Knowing; Ethical Issues in Research; Feminist Methodologies; Focus Groups; Mixed and Multiple Methods; Performance, Research as; Quantitative Data; Situated Knowledge, Reflexivity; Subjectivity; Transcripts (Coding and Analysis); Triangulation.
584
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
Further Reading Baxter, J. and Eyles, J. (1999). The utility of in-depth interviews for studying the meaning of environmental risk. Professional Geographer 51, 307--320. Bennett, K. (2002). Interviews and focus groups. In Shurmer-Smith, P. (ed.) Doing Cultural Geography, pp 151--162. London: Sage. Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J. and Philo, C. (2004). Practising Human Geography, pp 148–159. London: Sage. Crang, M. (2002). Qualitative methods: The new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography 26(5), 647--655. Dunn, K. (2000). Interviewing. In Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (1st edn.), pp 50--82. Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Elwood, S. A. and Martin, D. G. (2000). Placing interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. The Professional Geographer 52(4), 649--657. Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. J. (2000). Conducting Research into Human Geography, pp 211–219. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In Clifford, N. J. & Valentine, G. (eds.) Key Methods in Geography, pp 117--132. London: Sage. McDowell, L. (1998). Elites in the city of London: Some methodological considerations. Environment and Planning A 30, 2133--2146. Parr, H. (1998). The politics of methodology in ‘post-medical geography’: Mental health research and the interview. Health and Place 4(4), 341--353. Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography. The Professional Geographer 43, 180--189. Valentine, G. (1997). Tell me about y: Using interviews as a research methodology. In Flowerdew, R. & Martin, D. (eds.) Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, pp 110--126. Edinburgh Gate: Addison Wesley Longman.
Valentine, G. (1999). Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area 31, 67--74.
Relevant Websites http://www.geog.le.ac.uk Exploring online research methods in a virtual training environment: online interviews (University of Leicester). http://www.managementhelp.org General guidelines for conducing interviews, Management Library. http://www.msu.edu Interviewing in qualitative research, Michigan State University. http://www.intute.ac.uk Intute: social sciences, qualitative methods, web resources for education and research. http://www.resolutions.co.nz Research solutions: in-depth interviews, innovative marketing research and strategy. http://www.scu.edu Resource papers in action research: convergent interviewing, a technique for qualitative data collection, Southern Cross University, Australia. http://aix1.uottawa.ca Tips for research interviews, University of Ottawa. http://www.wpi.edu WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute Global Perspective Program Handbook for IPQ (Interactive Qualifying Project) advisors and students. Chapter 11: introduction to interviewing techniques.
Glossary Cold Calling This is calling on people (usually strangers) without any prior approach or contact being made in the first instance to ask if they would be prepared to be interviewed. Interviewers often get a high refusal rate using this approach. Positionality It describes a person’s position within the midst of complex, shifting and overlapping political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, gendered, and racialized processes. How people are positioned in relation to various contexts of power affects the way they understand the world. Some geographers have argued that reflecting carefully on and declaring one’s positionality may lead to more sound research because it becomes apparent that all knowledge is partial. Recruiting on Site It involves making contact with potential participants at a site or location that is relevant in some way to the research, for example, if someone was researching the culture of rugby they might attempt to recruit participants at a rugby club and/or field. Reflexivity Critical and conscious introspection and analytical scrutiny of oneself as a researcher. Reflexivity involves examining one’s own practice in order to gain new insights into research. Situated Knowledge A notion that challenges the idea that knowledge is simply ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered. Instead, knowledge is ‘embodied’, that is, it is made by people who are situated within particular contexts. Snowballing A technique used by researchers whereby one contact, or participant, is used to help recruit another, who in turn puts the researcher in touch with another. The number of participants soon increases rapidly or ‘snowballs’. Triangulation It involves using a variety of methods to collect data as opposed to relying on one single form of evidence as the basis for findings.
they feel are significant. The interviewer does not keep a tight rein on the interview but instead allows the interviewee, through the use of open-ended questions, to explore the subject in as much depth and from as many angles as they please. Interviews are usually conducted individually but can also be conducted in pairs or groups. In-depth, semi-structured interviews are probably one of, if not the most commonly used qualitative method in the discipline of human geography. Geographers have used in-depth, semi-structured interviews to collect data on a huge array of subjects, including gay pride parades, merchant banking, and geography field trips to name just three. They have also reflected in great depth on the use of this method. At the level of research design geographers have considered issues such as who is interviewed, what questions they are asked, how to select and recruit participants, where to meet, how to record and transcribe interviews, and how to analyze data. Geographers have also considered many of the ethical, political, and epistemological issues surrounding the use of in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Interviewing takes a number of different forms. At one end of a continuum are structured interviews in which the interviewer asks a list of prescribed questions (these questions are always asked in the same way and the same order). In structured interviews respondents are discouraged from deviating from the questions. At the other end of the continuum are unstructured interviews. In unstructured interviews respondents are encouraged to direct the conversation instead of the interviewer. Indepth, semi-structured interviews sit somewhere in the middle of this continuum. They involve directing respondents to some degree mainly by talking and listening to people but in ways that are self-conscious, orderly, and partially structured. However, in-depth, semi-structured interviews are more than simply chats to people. It can take days, even weeks, to get prepared to conduct several interviews. Background reading, formulating questions, and contacting interviewees to set up appointments can be demanding and time consuming.
Introduction In-depth, semi-structured interviews are verbal interchanges where one person, the interviewer, attempts to obtain information from another person by asking questions. Although the interviewer prepares a list of predetermined questions, in-depth, semi-structured interviews tend to unfold in a conversational manner. This offers participants the opportunity to explore issues
580
Conducting In-Depth, Semi-Structured Interviews In-depth, semi-structured interviews can be used as a stand-alone method or in conjunction with another method or several other methods (this is sometimes refereed to as ‘triangulation’). The researcher needs to prepare questions, decide who to recruit to participate,
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
contact potential participants, choose a location, carry out the interviews, and transcribe the data, all the while being cognizant of the ethical issues and power relations involved in the research. Perhaps it is not surprising, therefore, that interviewing requires a high level of interpersonal skill. Interviewers need to be able to put people at ease. They also need to be able to ask questions in a straightforward but interesting way. Listening carefully to responses, acting in a way that develops trust and that is supportive, but without swaying participants to a particular position requires considerable skill. Before formulating interview questions researchers need to brief themselves fully in the subject area. Having done this it is important to create a list of themes or questions to ask participants. People who are very confident at interviewing sometimes equip themselves with just a list of themes. It is imperative to have a logical sequence of questions or themes which have been prepared in advance. Questions may be designed to elicit information that is ‘factual’, descriptive, provides background information, thoughtful and/or emotional. A combination of different types of questions can be effective depending on the research topic. Researchers tend to begin with a question that participants are likely to feel comfortable answering. More difficult, sensitive, or thought-provoking questions are best left to the second half of the interview when participants are likely to be feeling more comfortable. It is useful for interviewers to be familiar with the questions so as not to break the flow of the interview by having to read them from a paper all the time. The next step is to select participants. Usually people are chosen on the basis of their experience related to the research topic. While the aim of many quantitative methods is to choose a random or representative sample, to be ‘objective’, and to be able to replicate the data, the aim of qualitative methods is to choose respondents who will help the researcher make sense of people’s experiences. Thinking about who to interview often prompts researchers to reflect on their own identity and how this might shape the interactions during the interviews (this point is expanded in the section ‘Ethical issues and power relations’). There are many strategies for recruiting participants for interviews. Sometimes researchers carry out a simple questionnaire survey to gather contextual information and include a request at the end asking respondents who are prepared to engage in a follow-up interview to provide their contact details. Sometimes researchers advertise for participants in local newspapers or on radio stations requesting interested parties to make contact. Other methods for recruiting participants for interviews are ‘cold calling’ and ‘recruiting on site’. After interviewing a participant it is common for researchers to ask the interviewee if they know others who might also be
581
interested in being involved in the research. This technique is refereed to as ‘snowballing’. Having selected and recruited participants it is then necessary to decide where to conduct the interview. Obviously place can make a significant difference to the way in which an interview unfolds. It is important that both the interviewer and interviewee feel comfortable. For this reason a relatively neutral setting can be good. If the interview is to be taped then it is also important that the interview is conducted somewhere that is relatively quiet, otherwise transcribing the tape is likely to prove difficult, if not impossible. When interviewing business people or officials from organizations or institutions it is common to interview them on their own premises. This is often easier logistically than attempting to meet in another location. An advantage of meeting a respondent at their workplace is that it is often very useful for a researcher to be in the environment that they are studying (assuming ‘work’ is the focus of the interview). A potential disadvantage is that the interviewee may feel uncomfortable speaking freely especially if they want to say negative things about their particular business, organization, or institution. It is not always possible to carry out in-depth, semi-structured interviews in an ideal setting but so long as it is relatively neutral, comfortable, quiet, and accessible for both parties then it is likely to prove successful. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews tend to last, on average, one h (but this can vary enormously). Busy people are reluctant to give up much more time than this and it is important not to overstay one’s welcome. If more time is required, an interviewer can ask the respondent if it is possible to arrange another interview for a later date. Having a second interview rather than one long interview can also provide the interviewer with an opportunity to begin analyzing the material from the first interview thereby returning to the second interview with more pertinent questions. Some researchers take notes when they conduct indepth, semi-structured interviews. Others audio–video record the interview which provides them with both an aural and a visual record. Most researchers, however, simply audio record the proceedings. The advantage of this over note taking is that the researcher can focus fully on the conversation as it unfolds instead of feeling pressure to try and record the participant’s comments in a notebook. A disadvantage of audiotaping is that some participants may be uncomfortable being taped. Taping can affect dramatically the way in which people feel they are able to tell stories about themselves and others. Regardless of whether an interviewer decides to tape the conversation or not, it is a good idea after the interview to document the general tone of the conversation, any important nonverbal cues, the key themes that emerged, and anything that might have been particularly
582
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
interesting or surprising during the interview. This helps the researcher begin the task of analyzing the data. If an interviewer does audiotape an interview it is helpful to transcribe the conversation as soon as possible after conducting it. Hearing the taped conversation when it is still foremost in one’s mind makes transcription much easier. Sometimes researchers use a variety of different transcription codes, for example, the starts of overlap in talk can be marked by a double oblique //; pauses can be marked with a dot in parenthesis (.); nonverbal actions, gestures, and facial expressions can be noted in square brackets; and loud exclamations can be noted in bold type face. Once transcripts have been completed the researcher begins the task of analyzing the data – determining the meaning in the information gathered in relation to the purpose of the research. Most researchers look for themes, commonalities, and patterns to try to make sense of the information. It can also be useful to think about the differences that emerge in the data, noting themes that run counter to, or contradict, those that are emerging. Some researchers employ computer-based programs (such as NUD*ist) to assist with the analysis of transcripts. Others use more ‘low-tech’ options such as marking significant words and phrases with highlighter pens. If more questions are raised that need to be clarified in order to serve the purpose of the study, then another in-depth, semi-structured interview may be warranted to examine the issue more comprehensively.
Strengths and Weaknesses of In-Depth, Semi-Structured Interviews Having addressed some of the ‘nuts and bolts’ of organizing and conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews I now discuss some of the strengths and weaknesses of this method. A strength of the method is that it is helpful for delving into and attempting to understand complex behaviors, experiences, and opinions. Other methods such as observation, closed questionnaires, census data, and structured interviews do not allow for much discovery or probing. In-depth, semi-structured interviews, however, offer interviewers and interviewees time and space to explore issues thoroughly. The method is also useful for collecting a range of opinions on a topic. Sometimes interviews reveal consensus but often they illustrate that people of different ages, ethnicities, gender, and sexualities have diverse opinions and experiences and do not agree on many issues. Semi-structured, in-depth interviewing can prove particularly useful for investigating personal, sensitive, or confidential issues which informants might find difficult to disclose and discuss in a group interview or focus group. Such issues are also difficult if not impossible
to raise in a questionnaire. It is possible that some people might feel under too much scrutiny in a semi-structured, in-depth interview and be less willing to open up than in the relaxed atmosphere of a group, but a skilled interviewer is usually able to overcome this by establishing a good rapport and trust with the respondent. Most interviewees are forthcoming and eager to help out. Another strength of in-depth, semi-structured interviews is that potentially the method can be used in a way that shows respect for people. Interviewers usually indicate that they value the interviewee’s opinions (although complex ethical issues can arise when, for example, an interviewee expresses highly discriminatory opinions in the interview). This does not necessarily imply that researchers empower their interviewees because the fact remains that most research benefits the researcher far more than it does his or her interviewees. A weakness of the method is that it tends to be very time consuming. Formulating a schedule of questions and/or prompts, recruiting participants, organizing times and spaces in which to conduct interviews, and transcribing and analyzing interviews all add up to many hours of labor. Another weakness of the method is that interviewing can open up participants to feeling manipulated and betrayed (but also to feeling empowered). Interviewing relies upon intersubjectivity – people engaging with and positioning themselves in relation to each other. It depends upon human relationships and these relationships can be rewarding but also disappointing. These strengths and weaknesses illustrate that there are numerous ethical issues and power relations involved in conducing indepth, semi-structured interviews.
Ethical Issues and Power Relations Confidentiality and anonymity are two important ethical issues that have been discussed by geographers and others in relation to in-depth, semi-structured issues. Participants need to be guaranteed that all the data collected will remain secure under lock or on a computer database accessible by password only; that information supplied will remain confidential and participants will remain anonymous (unless they desire otherwise); and that participants have the right to withdraw from the research at any time without explanation. Most researchers offer to provide participants with a summary of the research results at the completion of the research project and to follow through on this pledge. Summaries can take the form of a hard copy or an electronic copy posted on a website. Another ethical issue that can arise when conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews is that an
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
interviewee may express sexist, racist, or other discriminatory views. It is often argued that researchers ought to listen, pay attention, and be nonjudgmental, but sometimes being nonjudgmental might reproduce and even legitimize an interviewees’ discrimination through complicity. Researchers need to think carefully about how to deal with such situations. There are no easy answers as to how to deal with these situations. Feminist, social, and cultural geographers in particular have made a useful contribution in this area. It cannot be assumed that interviewers will always be in a position of power over their interviewees. For example, a relatively young female graduate student might find herself in the position of interviewing a wealthy middle-aged businessman who expresses stridently discriminatory opinions. The young graduate at some points during the interview might find it difficult to know how to respond. Researchers also need to think carefully about how to interview in different cultural contexts. For example, ‘First World’ researchers investigating ‘Third World’ ‘subjects’ need to be highly sensitive to local codes of conduct. During interviews the interviewer and interviewee are likely to keep repositioning themselves with respect to the multiple roles and fractured identities that they take up. How people position themselves in relation to ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, age, and so on during interviews has implications for the interview overall and for interpreting interview data. Over the past decade, taken-for-granted notions about who is an insider, who is an outsider, who has access to ‘authentic’ knowledge, and who can speak on a particular subject have been raised by geographers in relation to interviewing. Geographers have also discussed and debated the concepts of ‘positionality’ and ‘reflexivity’ in relation to interviewing. Positionality describes a person’s position within the midst of complex, shifting and overlapping political, economic, cultural, social, sexual, gendered, and racialized processes. How people are positioned within various contexts of power affects the way they understand the world. Reflexivity involves reflecting carefully on one’s position as a researcher and declaring one’s positionality in the work. The aim of this strategy is to make explicit the researcher’s role in knowledge production. It becomes evident in such research that knowledge is ‘situated’ and partial rather than neutral and universal. Knowledge is not neutral but created by people who occupy particular subject positions. Some argue, however, that acknowledging one’s positionality and being reflexive about the research is perhaps easier said than done. Questions have been raised about how possible it is to fully understand ourselves as researchers, the researched, and the research context. While researcher reflexivity may be a useful goal, examining our own practice in order to gain new insights into research practice and knowledge production may be difficult to achieve.
583
Clearly there are many ethical issues and power relations that need to be teased out when conducting in-depth, semi-structured interviews. In-depth, semi-structured interviews now appear to be orthodox in human geography. They are no longer slighted as ‘soft methods’ (in fact, there is a long tradition in human geography – throughout the twentieth century – of researchers ‘talking to people’). There are, however, a number of other qualitative methods that although they share a great deal in common with in-depth, semistructured interviews still seem to be reasonably poorly regarded in the discipline. Other qualitative methods such as focus groups, group interviews, ethnography, auto-ethnography, autobiography, discourse analysis, and visual analysis still at times struggle for legitimacy in some fields such as economic and political geography. Overall, though, it seems that the discipline may be entering a period of more mature evaluation and reflection on qualitative methods and this has in part been spurred by geographers’ extensive use of in-depth, semistructured interviews.
Conclusion In-depth, semi-structured interviews are a commonly used method in geographical research. The method involves talking with people – it relies on a reasonably informal interaction between interviewees and interviewers. In-depth, semi-structured interviews are useful for investigating complex behaviors, opinions and emotions, and for collecting a diversity of experiences. The method does not offer researchers a route to ‘the truth’ but it does offer a route to partial insights into what people do and think. Sometimes researchers rely upon in-depth, semi-structured interviews as a stand-alone method; sometimes they are used in conjunction with other methods. In-depth, semi-structured interviews make a significant contribution to geographic research especially now that debates about meaning, identity, subjectivity, politics, knowledge, power, and representation are high on many geographers’ agendas. Critically examining the construction of geographical knowledge as partial and situated has led to an interest in developing methodological strategies, such as in-depth, semi-structured interviews, that have potential for raising questions about researcher reflexivity, power relations, and ‘different’ ways of writing and knowing. See also: Embodied Knowing; Emotional Knowing; Ethical Issues in Research; Feminist Methodologies; Focus Groups; Mixed and Multiple Methods; Performance, Research as; Quantitative Data; Situated Knowledge, Reflexivity; Subjectivity; Transcripts (Coding and Analysis); Triangulation.
584
Interviews: In-Depth, Semi-Structured
Further Reading Baxter, J. and Eyles, J. (1999). The utility of in-depth interviews for studying the meaning of environmental risk. Professional Geographer 51, 307--320. Bennett, K. (2002). Interviews and focus groups. In Shurmer-Smith, P. (ed.) Doing Cultural Geography, pp 151--162. London: Sage. Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J. and Philo, C. (2004). Practising Human Geography, pp 148–159. London: Sage. Crang, M. (2002). Qualitative methods: The new orthodoxy? Progress in Human Geography 26(5), 647--655. Dunn, K. (2000). Interviewing. In Hay, I. (ed.) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography (1st edn.), pp 50--82. Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Elwood, S. A. and Martin, D. G. (2000). Placing interviews: Location and scales of power in qualitative research. The Professional Geographer 52(4), 649--657. Kitchin, R. and Tate, N. J. (2000). Conducting Research into Human Geography, pp 211–219. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In Clifford, N. J. & Valentine, G. (eds.) Key Methods in Geography, pp 117--132. London: Sage. McDowell, L. (1998). Elites in the city of London: Some methodological considerations. Environment and Planning A 30, 2133--2146. Parr, H. (1998). The politics of methodology in ‘post-medical geography’: Mental health research and the interview. Health and Place 4(4), 341--353. Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a research method in economic geography. The Professional Geographer 43, 180--189. Valentine, G. (1997). Tell me about y: Using interviews as a research methodology. In Flowerdew, R. & Martin, D. (eds.) Methods in Human Geography: A Guide for Students Doing a Research Project, pp 110--126. Edinburgh Gate: Addison Wesley Longman.
Valentine, G. (1999). Doing household research: Interviewing couples together and apart. Area 31, 67--74.
Relevant Websites http://www.geog.le.ac.uk Exploring online research methods in a virtual training environment: online interviews (University of Leicester). http://www.managementhelp.org General guidelines for conducing interviews, Management Library. http://www.msu.edu Interviewing in qualitative research, Michigan State University. http://www.intute.ac.uk Intute: social sciences, qualitative methods, web resources for education and research. http://www.resolutions.co.nz Research solutions: in-depth interviews, innovative marketing research and strategy. http://www.scu.edu Resource papers in action research: convergent interviewing, a technique for qualitative data collection, Southern Cross University, Australia. http://aix1.uottawa.ca Tips for research interviews, University of Ottawa. http://www.wpi.edu WPI Worcester Polytechnic Institute Global Perspective Program Handbook for IPQ (Interactive Qualifying Project) advisors and students. Chapter 11: introduction to interviewing techniques.