Research Digest

The Qualitative Research Interview:
Theory and PracticeSuzanne Bonn
Concordia University
The qualitative research interview is a data collection tool which can aid in achieving anemic perspective to a classroom phenomenon. This paper describes the research interview
and addresses some of its benefits and limitations. Practical issues such as location, time,
recording equipment, and style are presented while the author offers insights into her own
research interview experiences. It is suggested that the qualitative research interview shouldbe either open or semi-structured, and it should be viewed as a co-construction of meaning
between the interviewer and interviewee. Finally, this active interview relationship should be
addressed when writing research for publication purposes.
質的インタビューとは、教室で生じている現象を内側から理解することを可能にするデータ収集方法である。本稿では、質的インタビュー研究について記述した上で、その強みと弱みを論じる。インタビューの場所、時間、記録
装置、形式といった実際的な事柄について述べると同時に、筆者自身のインタビュー経験について省察する。質的インタビューは非構造的であるか、半構造的であることが望ましい。それは、インタビューをする者とインタビューをされる者による協働的な意味構築の作業だと考えられる。質的インタビ
ュー研究を公刊する場合には、この「動的インタビュー」関係について記述することが望ましい。

This paper is written with beginner researchers in mind; it is for the researchers
who are about to embark on their own journey into the unchartered land ofclassroom research with a focus on one particular data collection method: thequalitative research interview. A key aspect of qualitative research is that it often
employs an emic, or insider view, of the phenomenon being studied (Duff, 2008);
40

The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51

the qualitative interview is a method of data collection that is particularly suited
to doing this. Based upon my own struggles as a novice researcher exploringteachers’ use of personal narratives, or stories, in English language classrooms
in Japanese universities, this paper considers the strengths and weaknesses ofqualitative interviews while providing theoretical background and practical tips
for conducting them. I hope that researchers can gain insights into the art ofinterviewing for research in language learning and teaching.

The Qualitative Interview

Before discussing the reasons for conducting qualitative research interviews, I
will briefly introduce three main benefits of qualitative research. First, qualitative
research “is concerned with capturing the qualities and attributes of thephenomena…rather than with measuring or counting” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009,p. 7); quantitative studies can only measure so much information (Richards,
2003). Second, qualitative research is people-focused, which is fitting for the fieldof language teaching and learning (Richards, 2003). Lastly, qualitative research
can transform researchers and help them understand a particular environment
in-depth (Richards, 2003), which is what Denzin and Lincoln (2011) term “theintimate relationship” (p. 8) between the researcher and the phenomenon. The
emic approach offers a close understanding of the data (or of the participants’perspectives), and reporting their ideas helps bring their voice to the readers.
According to Kvale (2006), qualitative interviews have been regularly
practiced in the social sciences since the 1980s. Interviews have been described inseveral ways: (1) as not simply a conversation (Rapley, 2006), (2) as a “professional
conversation” (Kvale, 1996, p. 5), and (3) as a conversation “with a guiding
purpose or plan” (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 76). Therefore, it is important
to look at the defining characteristics of an interview.
Types of Research Interviews
Research interviews can be categorized into three main types: structured,
unstructured or open, and semi-structured (Dörnyei, 2007; Richards, 2009).
Structured interviews are quite rigid, and researchers follow a set of predetermined questions. This type of interview is often referred to as a survey
41

Bonn

interview and is treated as a spoken questionnaire (Richards, 2009). It is used ininstances where a written questionnaire is not feasible, for example, worries ofa low return rate of written questionnaires (Richards, 2009) or the low literacy
rates of participants (Dörnyei, 2007). Structured interviews are most closely
associated with quantitative research.
Unstructured or open interviews are the most flexible of interview types.
There is often no list of pre-determined questions and establishing a good rapport
with the interviewee is important. The ultimate goal is “to explore in as much
depth as possible the respondent’s experiences, views, or feelings…the interview
is largely determined by the speaker” (Richards, 2009, p. 185).
Semi-structured interviews allow for pre-determined questions to beaddressed as well as any follow-up questions which may arise. An interview
guide, that is, a set of questions, is prepared. With the questions as a guide, open
conversation is encouraged so that certain points brought up by participants
can be further discussed. By asking the participants the same types of questions,answers can be compared across respondents. However, questioning is flexible inthat other questions and venues may be explored.
Qualitative interviewing is most strongly associated with open and semistructured interviews because these types allow for more narrative to occur;in other words, new and different paths in the professional conversation may
develop.
Roles of Interviewer and Interviewee
There are two opposing views of interviewers: the miner who digs for information,and the traveler who searches for information and through the journey has
conversations with many people (Kvale, 1996). Holstein and Gubrium (2004)
succinctly portray the miner metaphor when they declare, “[r]espondents are
not so much repositories of knowledge—treasuries of information awaiting
excavation—as they are constructors of knowledge in association withinterviewers” (p. 141). The notion of the interviewer and interviewee as coconstructors of knowledge is aptly portrayed in the concept of active interviewing
which explores the active and collaborative construction of meaning in interviews
42

The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51(Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, 1997, 2004). In this view, which is consistent withthe social constructivist approach to research, respondents are not viewed simply
as “passive vessels of answers” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2004, p. 144, emphasis in theoriginal), as traditionally portrayed in interviews, but as “active constructor[s] of
meaning” (ten Have, 2004, p. 77).
In an active interview, it is argued that the interviewee be regarded as anarrator or storyteller (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). The interviewer canactivate the interviewee’s narrative production by suggesting “narrative positions,
resources, orientations, and precedents” while “direct[ing] and harness[ing] therespondent’s constructive storytelling to the research task at hand” (Holstein &Gubrium, 1995, p. 39). The active interview concept is further explored below inthe section interview-as-local-accomplishment.
Interviews can be viewed in two ways, through the notions of interview-astechnique and interview-as-local-accomplishment (Silverman, 1993, 2001), andthese are explored in the next sections.

Interview-as-Technique

The concept of interview-as-technique considers the practicalities of the interview
such as local and global timing. In other words, the researcher should address
the following: when to conduct the interview, length of the interview, locationof the interview, planning of the overall schedule and required equipment, andprivacy of the respondents. Richards (2009) recommends asking these questions:“Who?”, “What?”, “Where?”, “How long?”, and “Under what conditions?” inorder to better understand the issues which may arise. Interview practicalities
such as location, length and timing, and equipment are further explored below.
Location
King and Horrocks (2010) argue that comfort, privacy, and quiet are key factors
to consider when selecting the physical environment of an interview. A location
convenient to the participants seems sensible since they are volunteers. The
likelihood of interruptions by someone entering the room, by the telephoneringing, or incoming emails should be minimal.
The places in which I have conducted interviews are quite various, such
43

Bonn

as a participant’s home, an empty classroom, a teacher’s office, or a parked car.
The latter may seem like an unconventional place to conduct an interview, but
because the restaurant which we had considered was too noisy at the time, the carturned out to be an ideal location due to its quietness. No matter the place for theinterview, the participant’s comfort and convenience should be priorities.
Length and Timing
One challenge to interviewing is that it is time-consuming for both theinterviewer and interviewee (Dörnyei, 2007). Both people have to take time outof their schedules for the interview. An interview which lasts over two hours may
be asking too much of the participants. However, an interview which lasts only
10 minutes may be too short and not comprehensive enough to gather the dataneeded. An ideal interview length would be one hour to one and a half hours.
In addition, the time of day of the interview can play a role in how theinterview unfolds. If your participants have been in classes most of the day andyou are interviewing them shortly after classes have finished, there is a chance they
will be tired and not as responsive as you would like them to be. When organizing
interview times with participants, I provided several options such as days andtimes of day. Finding a time of day in which both you and the participants arealert as well as striking a balance in terms of the length of the interview are all
factors to consider when setting up a qualitative interview.
Equipment
An unobtrusive, high quality IC recorder works well in hopes that the participants
will not take much notice to it, and the recording quality will be suitable fortranscription purposes. In my case, I used a palm-sized, digital IC recorder whichsaves data as MP3 audio files and can be plugged in directly to a computer.
Furthermore, it is important to test the audio equipment beforehand to ensure
how it works. By testing it out in various situations, audio recording problems
came to light before my actual data collection process. Some examples of audio
issues which arose were the IC recorder turning itself off and the participant’s
voice being too low. I treated audio recording issues as “valuable learning
opportunities” (Richards, 2003, p. 178) and addressed them by making changes
44The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51

to the recording process. For the former, I confirmed that the IC recorder was
not touching anything to prevent the recorder from turning itself off, and for thelatter issue, I placed the IC recorder on a slightly elevated platform between theparticipant and myself to better catch our voices.
I chose not to use a clip-microphone for the interviews, as I thought it would
make the interviews seem more formal or structured. One reason for such an
unobtrusive approach is to reduce the likelihood of participants feeling selfconscious, and thus more relaxed and open to providing self-disclosure statements.

Interview-as-Local-Accomplishment

Interviews should no longer be regarded as objective accounts of the interviewee’s
reality; they are constructed events with people playing contributive parts.
Qualitative interviewers should recognize the importance of interview-aslocal-accomplishment (Silverman, 1993, 2001), which views the interview as
an interactional event of jointly constructed meaning between the interviewer
and the interviewee, and as a speech event of its own (Mischler, 1986). It is
this concept of co-construction that Mann (2011) discusses when he argues thatwhat the interviewer brings to the interview process also needs to be analyzed
in conjunction with what the interviewee is contributing, and that collectively
this co-construction should be looked at in its entirety. He goes on to further
demonstrate how previous research which claimed to practice co-construction
failed to display it in the research analysis and findings (e.g., Hayes, 2005;
Varghese & Johnston, 2007).
Supporting Silverman’s interview-as-local-accomplishment concept,“interviews are inherently interactional events, that both speakers mutuallymonitor each other’s talk (and gestures), that the talk is locally and collaboratively
produced” (Rapley, 2006, p. 16, emphasis in the original). Words such as
interaction and collaboration suggest two or more people, and this notion
refers back to one of the previously mentioned benefits of qualitative research:
it is people-oriented. The researcher and participants can both gain from thiscollaboration; the researcher can gain new interactional skills and deeper
knowledge of the phenomenon being studied, while participants may learn more
45

Bonn

about themselves and their relationship with the studied phenomenon as well as
their connection to the wider world. With both the researcher and participants
co-constructing meaning, a more in-depth understanding of a particular
phenomenon or environment can be achieved.
Thus, the notion of interview-as-local-accomplishment demonstrates how
everyone in the research context may benefit. The essence of this idea is that a deeper
understanding of the researched phenomenon or environment is constructed,
and the interview as a speech event is accomplished. The interviewer’s style aswell as the idea of give and take are considered next.
Style
In a qualitative interview, the interviewer and the interviewee dually hold majorroles and should be included in the analysis. Similar to Mercer (2007), I adopted
an interview style with my teacher and student participants which was slightly
less “gregarious than [my] natural disposition” (p. 11), or so it seemed at the
beginning of the interviews. This style of interviewing was due to my media
exposure to off-camera reporters who ask a set of pre-determined questions,
who rarely interrupt the interviewees, and whom the television audience seldom
sees; what can be termed the traditional interview model. I recognize now that
I carried a premeditated intention of acting like a television reporter, but soonchanged this mindset when I felt it was unnatural for me to act this way.
I acknowledge that in my interviews, I attempted not to interrupt by saying“Uh-huh” or intervene as much as I usually would in a regular conversation since
I did not want to disrupt or influence the train of thought of the interviewee.
However, as the interviews progressed, I found I inevitably became more involvedin the interview and abandoned any pretense of being a neutral interviewer(Dörnyei, 2007; Rapley, 2001, 2006). I made a conscious decision to alter what I
thought was the correct interview style, that of the television reporter mining for
information, to that which was more reflective of a language teacher-researcher
exploring the field with a participant. The benefit of this invested approach tothe interviewer, interviewee, and interview is that it felt like we were working
together, that is co-constructing meaning, to discover more about teacher use of46

The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51

personal narrative in the language classroom.
Give and take
Prompted by what the interviewees said in all my interviews, I found myself
sharing insights, ideas, and stories with them (Rapley, 2001, 2006). In some of thestudent interviews, like Hawkins (1990), I felt I had to share personal information
to receive information from the interviewees; in some instances, it became aninterview of give and take (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). Some researchers argue
that a researcher should not tell personal stories during an interview (Mercer,
2007; Seidman, 2006). However, I chose not to follow this suggestion; I usedpersonal stories to help participants feel more at ease and to encourage them toshare more of their own experiences of teachers’ use of personal narratives in theclassroom. Furthermore, I consciously acted as a helping voice, which is “a voicethat makes itself available to help an interviewee articulate her- or himself moreclearly” (Lillrank, 2012, p. 283) and is especially used with participants who may
have a weak or elusive voice. In my case, I handled evasive answers with gentle
prompting or exemplifying from my own experiences.
Below is an interview excerpt with Kanako (K), a student participant. In thisexcerpt, we are discussing which teacher personal narrative, or story, she mostrecalls.
1 S

Is there a personal story that she [K’s teacher] said that you reallyremember the most?
2 K Ah, I don’t remember. ((laughing))
3 S There’s nothing that stands out?
4 K Um… ((giggling))
5 S OK, don’t worry if there’s not a story that stands out. Then, maybe all thestories are kind of similar meaning to you. OK, um, why do you think[your teacher] told stories during class?
6 K Um, because like if we like share the personal story, it’s seems more likesimilar to us.
7 S Oh.
47

Bonn

8 K I mean like American current situation kind of I feel like it’s kind of far
because I live in Japan. But like if someone I know tell me about this thismake feels more closer or…
9 S Yeah, yeah. OK and, um, what did you learn from her personal stories?
Do you remember learning anything in particular?
10 K Yeah, like for example, she told me that… uh… the university students
have a charity event and like, for example, the horror house or that kind of
stuff and then they donate all the money to the like poor child, children
or…
11 S Do they not do that in Japan?
12 K Um, maybe, but I don’t know.
13 S Oh, OK. Do you belong to a like a club on campus or circle?
Lines 2, 4, and 12 show evidence of a weak voice or an evasive answer.
Although I attempted to no avail a gentle push in line 3, I chose not to coerce ananswer from Kanako. Instead, I returned to my original question (line 1) in line
9 through a rewording of my original question. One of my interview techniques
for activating student participants’ narrative production was to ask questions
about Japan or about participants themselves, as seen in lines 11 and 13. In otherwords by acting as a helping voice, I hoped to give them opportunities to provide
information which they felt confident in answering.

Conclusion

To review, this paper highlights reasons for conducting qualitative interviews
and presents key aspects to aid researchers in getting started. The qualitativeinterview portrays the researcher-interviewer as a traveler who searches for
information and through the journey has conversations with many people (Kvale,1996). What distinguishes the qualitative interview from other interview types
is the collaborative efforts between the interviewer and interviewee. Practicalissues such as location, length and timing, recording equipment, and style,should be fully addressed before commencing data collection. Throughout myinterviews, I strived to maintain the notion of the active interview (Holstein &48

The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51

Gubrium, 1995, 1997, 2004) and to truly consider the interview as a professional
conversation (Kvale, 1996). The interview is not only a data-gathering tool, butalso an interactional event.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Robert Croker and Joe Falout for their insightfulcomments on earlier versions of this paper and Toru Hanaki for his translation of
the abstract. This research was supported in part by a 2013 JALT CUE Research
Grant and a 2013 JALT Research Grant.

References

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis Group.
Hawkins, B. S. R. (1990). The management of staff development in contracting
education service. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Birmingham City
University, Birmingham, UK.
Hayes, D. (2005). Exploring the lives of non-native speaking English educators
in Sri Lanka. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11, 169–94.
Holstein, J. A. & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1997). Active interviewing. In D. Silverman(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 113-129).
London, England: Sage.
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2004). The active interview. In D. Silverman(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method, and practice (pp. 140-161).
London, England: Sage.
King, N. & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in qualitative research. London,
England: Sage.
49

Bonn

Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12, 480-500.
Lillrank, A. (2012). Managing the interviewer self. In J. F. Gubrium, J. A.
Holstein, A. B. Marvasti, & K. D. McKinney (Eds.), The SAGE handbookof interview research: The complexity of the craft (pp. 281-294). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mann, S. (2011). A critical review of qualitative interviews in applied
linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 32, 6-24.
Mercer, J. (2007). The challenges of insider research in educational institutions:Wielding a double‐edged sword and resolving delicate dilemmas. Oxford
Review of Education, 33, 1-17.
Mischler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A
comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle.
Rapley, T. (2001). The art(fulness) of open-ended interviewing: Someconsiderations on analyzing interviews. Qualitative Research, 1, 303-323.
Rapley, T. (2006). Interviews. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman(Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 15-33). London, England: Sage.
Richards, K. (2003). Qualitative inquiry in TESOL. Hampshire, England:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.),
Qualitative research in applied linguistics: A practical introduction (pp. 182199). Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers ineducation and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for talk, text andinteraction. London, England: Sage.
Silverman, D. (2001). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk,50

The Qualitative Research Interview, OnCUE Journal, 8(1), pages 40-51

text and interaction (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
Varghese, M., & Johnston, B. (2007). Evangelical Christians and English
language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 9-31.

Author Bio

Suzanne Bonn has a PhD in Applied Linguistics from Aston University (UK)and currently teaches at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. She lived
in Nagoya, Japan for over 12 years where she worked at various universities. Her
research interests are teacher personal narratives, research methodologies, andnarrative analysis. sgbonn@hotmail.com
Received: July 8, 2014
Accepted: July 21, 2014
Editor’s Note: One of the primary aims of the CUE SIG is to support and recognize
the distinctive work of our members through a variety of awards and grants. For
outstanding articles in the OnCUE Journal or excellent conference presentations weoffer the member or attendee nominated Reader’s Choice and Best of CUE Awards.
CUE also supports our members’ interests in professional development through the
New Member Conference Grant, Member Support Conference Grant, and Member
Research Grant, which aim to help members with little or no institutional funding.
To find more information about CUE awards and grants and learn how to apply,
please see our website. http://jaltcue.org/content/cue-grants-and-awards-2014
Suzanne is a recipient of the Member Research Grant
and consequently applied her grant to a contributing
article.

51