In-depth Interviews in Qualitative Research
Understanding Social Reality Through Interviews
6. Tactics of Clarification
It is sometimes necessary to ask the interviewee to clarify a point, especially when other tactics have failed. This can be done by asking for a chronological account or by asking direct questions such as “Why did you believe…?”, “What happened between … and …?”, or “What led you to make that decision?”.
7. Tactical Change of Subject
This tactic should be avoided and is usually the result of a lack of expertise from the interviewer (or some embarrassment) or saturation in the treatment of certain points. It is used to finalize the items to be addressed in the interview but runs the risk that the interviewee considers it an indicator of low interest. Thus, it has to be used carefully.
8. Post-Interview
This refers to the climate created after the recorder is turned off and the formal part of the interview ends. Off the record, the roles change. The situation may be a time to relax and continue the conversation without the pressure of the recorder. The productivity of these talks has been noted on many occasions, allowing the interviewer to take valuable notes afterward. This situation usually occurs when the interview has evoked painful memories or touched upon sensitive topics that deviate from social norms, leading to silences, contradictions, or evasions. The relaxed, informal post-interview encourages the individual to open up. It can also be a time to set new interview dates, either with the same subject or with relevant contacts they may provide.
3.5. Research Design and Interviews
While quantitative research has clearly identified steps or phases of design, qualitative research has a more tentative design, with the initial theory guiding the first steps of fieldwork. In this initial stage, researchers should decide whether or not to use in-depth interviews and consider other investigative techniques.
The decision depends largely on the research questions. Alonso outlines four core subject areas for using in-depth interviews:
- Reconstruction of past actions: biographical approaches, oral archives, etc.
- Study of social representations and customs: systems of norms and values, prejudices, beliefs, stereotypes, individual life experiences, etc.
- Study of the interaction between personal psychological constitutions and specific social behaviors: studies of aggression, violence, deviant behavior, etc., where focus groups may be less effective due to the tendency for inconsistent individual responses.
- Exploration of semantic fields, vocabulary, and discourse: exploring language to inform the design and drafting of other instruments, such as structured questionnaires.
As seen in this classification, the exploratory use of interviews is primarily highlighted in the fourth point, emphasizing their complementary role in exploring language. The other points emphasize the importance of interviews in themselves or for the purpose of contrasting or deepening information provided by other techniques. Their use assumes that the objects of study will be analyzed from subjective interpretations given by the interviewees, moving away from the application of strict validity or reliability criteria.
Other criteria besides the research theme may call for the inclusion of open interviews in a research design, such as those relating to the study population or temporal issues. For example, if we are interested in studying homeless individuals, in-depth interviews may be the most direct way to access this marginalized population. While participant observation could offer a fuller perspective, time constraints associated with the need for immediate intervention may make open interviews a more viable and productive option.