Exploring Qualitative Methods

The use of semi-structured interviews

The interview is a managed verbal exchange (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003 and Gillham, 2000)
and as such its effectiveness heavily depends on the communication skills of the interviewer
(Clough & Nutbrown, 2007). These include the ability to clearly structure questions (Cohen
et al., 2007); listen attentively (Clough & Nutbrown, 2007); pause, probe or prompt
appropriately (Ritchie & Lewis, p.141); and encourage the interviewee to talk freely, Make
it easy for interviewees to respond (Clough & Nutbrown, 2007, p.134). Interpersonal skills
(Opie, 2004) such as the ability to establish rapport, perhaps with humour and humility, are
also important. This last point draws attention to the relational aspect and trust which is
needed between participants.
A useful concept in describing types of interview is the continuum; any particular interview
can be placed somewhere between unstructured and structured. The unstructured pole
is closer to observation, while the structured use of closed questions is similar to types
of questionnaire1. The interview discussed here could be described along the continuum as
semi-structured. Cohen et al. (2007) draw attention to the variety of interview models
discussed in methodology literature. Patton (1980), for example, describes four types
including the interview guide approach. This resembles closely the current interview in its
use of a schedule (see below). What is common to the majority of the differences in
approach is the extent to which one interview can be compared with another. This
ultimately relates to broader questions about qualitative and quantitative methodologies, a
point suggested by Cohen et al. (2007, p.355).
The decision to interview implies a value on personal language as data. Face-to-face
interviewing may be appropriate where depth of meaning is important and the research is
primarily focused in gaining insight and understanding (Gillham 2000, page 11; Ritchie &
Lewis 2003, p.138). It could also be argued the researcher choosing to interview face-toface recognises the potential significance of context. In relation to this, there is debate
between nave realism and constructivist perspectives. However, from a critical realist
position it is possible to recognise the collaborative qualities of research data while
maintaining a belief in its validity in revealing knowledge beyond itself of the social world
within which the interview event has occurred (Banfield, 2004). Semi-structured
interviewing is therefore consistent with participatory and emancipatory models.

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

Interviewing was chosen for the current project for the following reasons:

It provides the opportunity to generate rich data;

Language use by participants was considered essential in gaining insight into their
perceptions and values;

Contextual and relational aspects were seen as significant to understanding others

perceptions;

Data generated can be analysed in different ways.

Semi-structured interviewing in practice

The research interests framing the face-to-face interview reviewed here are perceptual
relationships between course choice, character and ideas of success. These are considered
in relation to the college admissions systems, marketing, IAG (information, advice, and
guidance) on the one hand, and with respect to the array of personal reasons, future
ambitions and sense of subject interest students bring, on the other hand.
Situated in one location and adopting a case study approach, the research aim was to
positively affect the public space it is encompassing and acknowledge the importance of
context in understanding students perceptions. The interviews purpose was to use
conversation, discussion, as well questioning, of a student to provide insight on the
investigation themes. It was also of interest to find out in what ways a participants voice
might problematise assumptions, from the college perspective, on how and why students
choose their courses.
The Interview (abbreviated transcript in Appendix)
An interview schedule was designed with key questions (. These were grouped thematically
to be used for reference and as prompts if necessary. It was hoped by writing these down
beforehand they would be used more spontaneously in the interview without the need to
refer to the schedule explicitly. A different group of students looked at the questions
earlier in order to check the language and terms of reference were clear.
The student to be interviewed was chosen purposively. This was based on their completion
of a questionnaire in September. The student had above average scores on this in relation
to rating statements about course content. The member of staff who made initial contact
with the interviewee made reference to this questionnaire when they arranged the

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

meeting. It was hoped the prior involvement and their willingness to be interviewed
indicated an interest in the topic. Although with respect to sampling this may represent a
limitation, in relation to the quality and depth of the comments there were positive
expectations through adopting this approach.
I arranged to meet the student interviewee in the foyer of the college building. We were
introduced to each other by the members of staff who had arranged the meeting time. We
then went to a pre-booked interview room and I was able to break the ice and establish a
rapport through phatic talk while we walked.
After asking the interviewee to confirm demographic information the first topic question
was an open-ended content mapping question:
Why did you choose your subjects?
Many questioning styles such as the use of content mapping and mining techniques,
described by Ritchie and Lewis (2003), were present, including explanatory probing:
Was that in terms of degree or in terms of jobs or both?
and exploratory probing:
Even within English you had choice of different ones, what led you to English Lit as
opposed to Lang Lit or Language?
The interview soon felt like a natural exploratory conversation. Reading the transcription I
was struck at how dependent I was on the willingness of the interviewee to talk. During the
interview I had the impression of eliciting information through naturally occurring
questions. However on examination many of my questions were closed and the interviewee
could have responded with one word or phrase. Thankfully the interviewee generally
opened further and seemed to use the questions as prompts to share her thoughts.
Often the closed questions were probing for more information or checking the meaning of
utterances. For example, earlier the interviewee had said a choice reason was like of a
subject, Just something Im interested in, really, and Id enjoy it. However this idea was
linked to her expected success: So I thought if I do something I enjoy Im more likely to do
better at it. The semi-structured nature of the interview allowed probing of this later:
Was there any you liked but you didnt do quite so well in?
It is possible to see how commitment to structured questioning could have prevented this
point being examined.

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

The open ended questions seemed to follow a pattern, occurring after the introduction of a
new idea/theme. Here, used for content mining and as a clarifying probe:
How do you think youre better at it? What makes you better at it, than the
language?
Or in this instance to widen the perspective:
And do you think your experience at school on those subjects, you tell me, how did
that influence your decisions?
Twice I expressed an opinion in relation to something said by the interviewee. In terms of
conversational analysis these could be described as positive assessment to a statement of
opinion (Fairclough, 1995)2. For many researchers this would move the interview away from
data collection for comparative purposes. However I felt these comments created a sense of
shared interest which resulted in fuller discussion of topics. The standards of validity argued
by some researchers in the traditional scientific community are not the only ones.
Reliability can be established through transparency and openness by the researcher about
their theoretical perspective and by allowing interviewees to comment on interpretations
drawn from interview analysis. The personal relationships developed through sharing
increases trust. For my research it is trust and mutual respect which will ultimately
legitimise the argument of the research in the public sphere.
Evaluation of method
The success and validity of an interview rests on the extent to which the respondents
opinions are truly reflected; the interviewees voice, communicating their perspective.
Jones (1985, quotation from Punch, 2001) summarises the purpose:
In order to understand other persons constructions of reality, we would do
well to ask themand to ask them in such a way that they can tell us in their
terms (rather than those imposed rigidly and a priori by ourselves) and in a
depth which addresses the rich context that is the substance of the
meanings.
Threats to the validity of this kind of interview include the use of leading questions or the
researchers preconceived ideas influencing what is and is not worth discussing. Considering
the live nature of face-to-face interviewing and the complexity of language in use it is not
easy to avoid all these and other challenges. However this same vulnerability and

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

complexity produces a richness and depth to data worth many of the risks. Furthermore, by
adopting a participatory approach in which the prime data (the transcribed interviews) are
co-created and evaluated increases internal validity.
Weaknesses
However it is important to recognise and address other weaknesses this method could be
seen to have. Denscombe (2007) discuss research which demonstrates how people respond
differently depending on how they perceive the interviewer, the interviewer effect. In
particular, the sex, the age, and the ethnic origins of the interviewer have a bearing on the
amount of information people are willing to divulge and their honesty about what they
reveal (p.184). This problem is very dependent on the nature of the topics being
discussed3. Gomm (2004) describes demand characteristics, which is when the interviewees
responses are influenced by what s/he thinks the situation requires. This is one reason to
make clear at the beginning of an interview what the purpose and topics are and seek to
put the interviewee at ease.
In the current interview, as with any moving towards unstructured, it is impossible to fully
evaluate these effects. Despite this it is feasible to examine the internal consistency of
what the interviewee said and any hesitations. Using other data drawn from questionnaires
or in relation to behaviour builds a picture of the interviewee through which other
inconsistencies could be identified.
In the interview guide approach Patton (2002) mentions, and which was used in this project,
topics may be inadvertently missed. Comparability is reduced because sequencing and
wording will probably be different in each interview. However, what is potentially lost here
is gain by allowing interviews to develop their own coherence, which itself can be analysed.
The method depends significantly on the skill of the interviewer.
Whenever individuals are questioned, even under oath in court, it cannot be certain they
have told the truth. With this method interviewees may say what they think the interviewer
wants to hear or the opposite of what they think they want to hear. The researchers
concerns here may depend on the nature of the topics discussed and checks and probes can
be used where there are doubts. But in the end it is the responsibility of the researcher, as
with the barrister, to pull evidence from the data which when interpreted sounds
convincing, credible and reliable. This raises potential tensions, however, if the researcher
seeks respondent validation for interim findings. The interviewee may ask to retract

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

comments seen as valuable, data which in turn is essential to providing credible evidence to
justify the research as a whole.
Strengths
Responses could be made to each of the weaknesses above. For example, some degree of
comparison may be possible depending on how structured the questions are. Content
analysis can be used even with very unstructured interviews and provide comparable data.
However space dictates that some of the strengths be allowed to speak for themselves.
Gomm (2004) describes the cooperative nature of the interview as a fact-producing
interaction. Although he is not positive about this, from a different perspective it could be
argued facts are always socially produced and the influence of a responsibly engaged
researcher helps interviewees describe perceptions they would otherwise think irrelevant or
in their normal social context feel inhibited from mentioning. In relation to more personal
interview encounters he states (p.230): The argument is that only by developing intimate,
trusting and empathetic relationships will respondents feel able to disclose the truth.
Gomm (2004) suggests this is not a successful defence and researchers have resorted to
evaluating success in terms of changing participants, moving away from discovery. However,
he underestimates the force of finding similar perspectives from a small sample of
individuals interviewed in-depth in the context of a case study. It is the power of semistructured interviews to provide rich, original voices which can be used to construct
research narratives that gives the method its invaluable quality.
The current interview could have been better in terms of question structures. However,
rather than less opinion sharing, I can see the value of opening up the interview further in
the direction of conversation. The fact the interviewee offered to talk again later in the
year is important a conversation has begun with someone, within the public space of
college, whose perspective has never before been heard. The more this voice is expressed
the greater possibility of change and the greater the worth of the research which facilitated
its expression.
Ethical considerations
Semi-structured interviews allow individuals to disclose thoughts and feelings which are
clearly private. This method relies on the inter-personal skills of the interviewer, the ability
to establish relationship and rapport. These qualities are valuable but ethically very
sensitive. The types of questions to be asked, issues of confidentiality and at times

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

anonymity have to be thoroughly assessed and discussed. As mentioned above, trust is

fundamental and must be maintained through professionalism and respect for each person
whose perspective through this method should be recognised as unique and valuable.

Notes
1. Denscombe (2007) suggests only semi-structured and unstructured are on this continuum. He focuses on
the use of open-ended questions and allowing interviewees to use their own words and develop their own
thought (p.176).
2. The two comments were the following:
Interviewer: Yea, I think from that perspective we (teachers) forget the importance of introducing that
variety. Yea its very true.
Interviewer: I think lots of people dont realise that doing subjects as broad as that you have lots of options.
3. Gomm (2004) also discusses this drawing attention to similarities with expectancy effects in experiments
(p.221).

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

Bibliography
Banfield, G. (2004). Whats Really Wrong with Ethnography?
Journal 4(2): 53-63

International Education

Bryman, Alan, 2nd Edition (2004). Chapter 15: Interviewing in qualitative research. In Social
Research Methods. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Clough, Peter (2002) Narratives and Fictions in Educational Research. Buckingham: Open
University
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K., 6th Edition (2007) Research Methods in Education
London: RoutledgeFalmer
Denscombe, M., 3rd Edition (2007). The Good Research Guide: For Small-scale Social
Research. Buckingham: Open University Press
Drever, E. (1997). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. Edinburgh: The
Scottish Council for Research in Education.
Fairclough N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:
Longman.
Gillman, B. (2000). The research interview. London: Continuum
Gomm, R. (2004). Social Research Methodology. A critical introduction. Hampshire,
England: Palgrave Macmillan
Jones, Sue (1985). Depth Interviewing. In: Walker, Robert (ed) (1985). Applied Qualitative
Research. Aldershot, UK: Gower. pp 45-55.
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Newbury Park, CA: SAGE
Opie, C (2004). Doing educational research. London: SAGE.
Patton, M. Q. 3rd Edition (2002), Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, pp. 4041,
Sage Publications, Inc.
Punch, K. F. (2001). Introduction to social research. London: SAGE
Ritchie, J. and J. Lewis (2003). Qualitative research practice : a guide for social science
students and researchers. London: SAGE.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook. London: SAGE.
Sproull, N. L. (1988). Handbook of Research Methods. London: The Scarecrow Press.

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

Appendix

Transcript of Interview about subject interest choice

SN 1
Interviewer: Were here to talk about your choices, interest in your subjects and about the
survey you completed at beginning of the year.
Why did you choose your subjects?
SN: Because Im not really sure what I wanted to do, I havent got any career ideas. I just
thought if I picked a range of subjects I could sort of do, its sort of open what I could do, Im
not like constricting myself to one area.
Interviewer: Was that in terms of degree or in terms of jobs or both?
SN: Both really. Im still not sure what I want to do, so I just thought give a little bit of
everything a try(then left open).
Interviewer: Did you think consciously, because you are doing Maths, as well something like
English Lit, did you think, right Ill do Maths, Science, something
SN: Yea, I was picking something I thought would go well together but would also go well
separately, so I could go for each one of them but then Maths and English that will be
important (.?)
Interviewer: Even within English you had choice of different ones, what led you to English Lit
as opposed to Lang Lit or Language?
SN: Because Ive got more of an interest in literature and I find I do better at literature
compared to language, its the one Im better at and Ill enjoy more. Then hopefully Id get a
better grade for it.
I: And then IT? Why did you decide to do IT?
SN: Just something Im interested in, really, and Id enjoy it. So I thought if I do something I
enjoy Im more likely to better at it. And I think the way the world is going its going to mean
IT is a pretty important skill to have, so I thought if I get a qualification in it then that another
thing which looks easy, so it will be one step ahead.
I: Were you interested at looking at the information, did you look at the information to help
you decide?
SN: Yea, I looked at the information sheets given for each of the courses at the open evening
and at school my teachers were giving me advice.
I: Thats quite a lot. And what about your family and friends, did you have any conversations
with them?

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

SN: I did speak to my family about it and they were just happy for me to do whatever they
thought I would enjoy and Id do well in. And they sort of said go for open subjects where Ive
still got a choice and Im not restricted to just doing one career or a degree in one thing.
I: I think lots of people dont realise that doing subjects as broad as that you have lots of
options.
SN: Yea, thats why Im doing it, so I can do pretty much anything.
I: And do you think your experience at school on those subjects, you tell me, how did that
influence your decisions?
SN: It did influence me quite a lot because I went with the subjects also I did well in, rather
than pick one I didnt do very well in. I thought it was best to do ones Im really good at to try
and improve at it, rather than starting something and having to start from the beginning with
little knowledge. So I sort of went with my grades, as well, from my GCSEs and sort of did it
that way.
I: Was there any you liked but you didnt do quite so well in?
SN: No.
I: Did you change between the liaison interview (clarifies this is understood as the interview
which takes place between the student and a college tutor during the year preceding beginning
college) and when you enrolled?
SN: I was set to do German as well, at AS level, and in my GCSEs I got the required grade but
I was only just in the grade and I went to it for like two weeks and found it too hard. And I had
to drop out, which is why Im now doing General Studies because I wanted something more
broad and I thought doing German was like limiting myself and I didnt think Id do well in it.
I did see, not the point, but I didnt want to waist my time trying to get something at a low
grade, when I could get a higher grade at something else.
I: And when you first went to the courses then, were they as you expected them to be?
SN: Yes, theyve all been as I expected them to be.
I: Thats pretty good going. What are the parts of those courses which you enjoy, or you think
youre better at, now, what would you say? Or can you pin point what youre enjoying and
better at?
SN: Probably like my best subject, probably IT at the moment. Because its sort of similar to
the course I did at school, my GCSE. Its a lot similar, if that makes sense. Let they set
themselves the work it exactly the same as how I did it at GCSE but just at a higher level. And
theres a theory test and at school I didnt do theory, so Im interested in learning the theory
behind it all. And then Maths I just thought, how I expected just as same school obviously just
a higher level, nothing really different with Maths. And English Im enjoying sort of only
learning one area of it, not being made to do language which I wasnt as good at, I preferred to
do just the literature and Im getting better results just by doing the one Im good at.

10

Nigel Newton, 2010

Exploring Qualitative Methods

I: How do you think youre better at it? What makes you better at it, than the language?
SN: I think its just my interest. I find it easier to analyse literature and Im good at getting my
own interpretations, Im quite imaginative in that sense. I look at one thing and I always see
differently to everyone else. I think that sort of helps it. Whereas with language I just not very
good. Im imaginative but I cant do the whole, like in GCSE stories Im not as good at that as
I am at literature.
I: Do you think That sounds to me like being able to see things from different perspectives.
SN: Yea, I think that more as well because I really good at science and maths I think that sort
of the way you look at something and you dont just take it how you first see it. I think thats
all linked together.
I: Do you read? Do you enjoy reading?
SN: Yea, I enjoy reading.
I: Has there been anything on the course or are there students on the course who you think why
are they here on the course?
SN: No, not really, because it seems better that you want people with interest in literature who
all enjoy the subject. Youre not there because you have to, its not like school, its because
you chose to. Everyone just gets on better and everyones just more suitable.
I: Although when you chose these subjects at the beginning of the year you said you didnt
have any ideas (about careers), do you have any inklings at the moment, I know were only 7
or 8 weeks in to it, but do you have any beginnings?
SN: Im sort of thinking about more IT based, as like a career or to go on to university, because
thats the subject I enjoy the most, that I look forward to going to that lesson the most. So I was
thinking of doing something more IT based than what I was thinking of doing before, focusing
more on IT.
I: You said you enjoy going to it more, why? Could you tell me why that might be?
SN: I think that its probably because Im better at the subject, because I really do get better
results. Ive always just understood it and I just seem to get on better and I think its because
every lesson is different, its not like English where you sit down and work on a poem and
write about the poem, if that makes sense, its always different, one day youre learning the
practical side, then in the next lesson youre learn the theory behind it. You can split it into two
halves, its not just doing the same poem.

11

Nigel Newton, 2010