\nTerm<\/strong><\/td>\nDefinition<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nResearch interview<\/strong><\/td>\n| A data collection method in which a researcher asks questions of one or more participants to gather first-hand information on a topic of study.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nInterview guide<\/strong><\/td>\n| A prepared list of questions or themes that steers a semi-structured interview while allowing flexibility in order and follow-ups.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nClosed-ended question<\/strong><\/td>\n| A question with fixed answer options, such as yes\/no, multiple choice, or rating scales; typical of structured interviews.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nOpen-ended question<\/strong><\/td>\n| A question that invites participants to answer freely in their own words; typical of qualitative interviews.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nProbing<\/strong><\/td>\n| Asking follow-up questions to clarify, deepen, or expand on a participant’s response.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nModerator<\/strong><\/td>\n| The researcher who facilitates a focus group discussion and manages group dynamics.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nRapport<\/strong><\/td>\n| The trust and ease established between interviewer and participant that encourages candid responses.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nData saturation<\/strong><\/td>\n| The point at which additional interviews stop producing new themes, codes, or insights.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nInterviewer effect<\/strong><\/td>\n| Bias that arises when a participant’s answers shift based on the interviewer’s perceived characteristics, such as age, gender, or status.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSocial desirability bias<\/strong><\/td>\n| Participants’ tendency to give answers they believe will be viewed favorably rather than fully honest ones.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTriangulation<\/strong><\/td>\n| Combining interviews with other methods, such as surveys or observation, to validate findings.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTranscription<\/strong><\/td>\n| Converting recorded interview audio into written text for analysis; may be verbatim (word for word) or clean (lightly edited).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nThematic coding<\/strong><\/td>\n| The systematic labeling of transcript passages to identify patterns and themes in qualitative data.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nInformed consent<\/strong><\/td>\n| A participant’s voluntary agreement to take part after being told the study’s purpose, procedures, and how their data will be used.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n <\/span>Key Takeaways<\/span><\/h2>\n\n- Interview types vary along three dimensions: <\/strong>structure (structured, semi-structured, unstructured, focus group), mode (face-to-face, telephone, online\/video, email), and purpose (in-depth, narrative, ethnographic).<\/li>\n
- Structured interviews <\/strong>maximize comparability and reliability and suit quantitative analysis, but sacrifice depth and flexibility.<\/li>\n
- Semi-structured interviews <\/strong>are the most widely used format in qualitative research because they balance depth with consistency.<\/li>\n
- Unstructured and in-depth interviews <\/strong>suit exploratory or sensitive topics but demand skilled interviewers and heavy analysis time.<\/li>\n
- Focus groups <\/strong>efficiently capture diverse perspectives and group dynamics, but have low external validity and risk groupthink.<\/li>\n
- Mode matters: <\/strong>face-to-face maximizes rapport and non-verbal data; telephone, video, and email trade some richness for reach, cost, and convenience.<\/li>\n
- Choose based on five factors: <\/strong>research objective<\/a>, how well-defined the topic is, time and resources, interviewer experience, and participant accessibility.<\/li>\n
- Types can be combined <\/strong>within one study, such as exploratory unstructured interviews followed by a semi-structured guide for a larger sample.<\/li>\n
- Ethics are non-negotiable: <\/strong>informed consent, confidentiality, cultural sensitivity, and
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |