benefits of using interviews for research

It’s too late to learn something new.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interview in Research

Approaching the Respondent- according to the Interviewer’s Manual, the introductory tasks of the interviewer are: tell the interviewer is and whom he or she represents; telling him about what the study is, in a way to stimulate his interest. The interviewer has also ensured at this stage that his answers are confidential; tell the respondent how he was chosen; use letters and clippings of surveys in order to show the importance of the study to the respondent. The interviewer must be adaptable, friendly, responsive, and should make the interviewer feel at ease to say anything, even if it is irrelevant.

Dealing with Refusal- there can be plenty of reasons for refusing for an interview, for example, a respondent may feel that surveys are a waste of time, or may express anti-government feeling. It is the interviewer’s job to determine the reason for the refusal of the interview and attempt to overcome it.

Conducting the Interview- the questions should be asked as worded for all respondents in order to avoid misinterpretation of the question. Clarification of the question should also be avoided for the same reason. However, the questions can be repeated in case of misunderstanding. The questions should be asked in the same order as mentioned in the questionnaire, as a particular question might not make sense if the questions before they are skipped. The interviewers must be very careful to be neutral before starting the interview so as not to lead the respondent, hence minimizing bias.

listing out the advantages of interview studies, which are noted below:

• It provides flexibility to the interviewers
• The interview has a better response rate than mailed questions, and the people who cannot read and write can also answer the questions.
• The interviewer can judge the non-verbal behavior of the respondent.
• The interviewer can decide the place for an interview in a private and silent place, unlike the ones conducted through emails which can have a completely different environment.
• The interviewer can control over the order of the question, as in the questionnaire, and can judge the spontaneity of the respondent as well.

There are certain disadvantages of interview studies as well which are:

• Conducting interview studies can be very costly as well as very time-consuming.
• An interview can cause biases. For example, the respondent’s answers can be affected by his reaction to the interviewer’s race, class, age or physical appearance.
• Interview studies provide less anonymity, which is a big concern for many respondents.
• There is a lack of accessibility to respondents (unlike conducting mailed questionnaire study) since the respondents can be in around any corner of the world or country.

INTERVIEW AS SOCIAL INTERACTION

The interview subjects to the same rules and regulations of other instances of social interaction. It is believed that conducting interview studies has possibilities for all sorts of bias, inconsistency, and inaccuracies and hence many researchers are critical of the surveys and interviews. T.R. William says that in certain societies there may be patterns of people saying one thing, but doing another. He also believes that the responses should be interpreted in context and two social contexts should not be compared to each other. Derek L. Phillips says that the survey method itself can manipulate the data, and show the results that actually does not exist in the population in real. Social research becomes very difficult due to the variability in human behavior and attitude. Other errors that can be caused in social research include-

• deliberate lying, because the respondent does not want to give a socially undesirable answer;
• unconscious mistakes, which mostly occurs when the respondent has socially undesirable traits that he does not want to accept;
• when the respondent accidentally misunderstands the question and responds incorrectly;
• when the respondent is unable to remember certain details.

Apart from the errors caused by the responder, there are also certain errors made by the interviewers that may include-

• errors made by altering the questionnaire, through changing some words or omitting certain questions;
• biased, irrelevant, inadequate or unnecessary probing;
• recording errors, or consciously making errors in recording.

Bailey, K. (1994). Interview Studies in Methods of social research. Simonand Schuster, 4th ed. The Free Press, New York NY 10020.Ch8. Pp.173-213.

We believe in sharing knowledge with everyone and making a positive change in society through our work and contributions. If you are interested in joining us, please check our ‘About’ page for more information

• Interview with Richard Collis, Author of The Pool
• Book Review: The Perfection of Fish by J.S. Morrison
• An Interview with Medallio Green, Author of Young Blood
• Blink and Glow: Raven Howell on Inspiring Children Through Nature, Imagination, and Storytelling
• Interview: John Morrison on The Perfection of Fish

The Guide to Interview Analysis

• What is Interview Analysis?

Introduction

Advantages of interviews over other data collection methods, advantages of different types of interviews, case studies with successful interviews.

• Disadvantages of Interviews in Research
• Ethical Considerations in Interviews
• Preparing a Research Interview
• Recruitment & Sampling for Research Interviews
• Interview Design
• How to Formulate Interview Questions
• Rapport in Interviews
• Social Desirability Bias
• Interviewer Effect
• Types of Research Interviews
• Face-to-Face Interviews
• Focus Group Interviews
• Email Interviews
• Telephone Interviews
• Stimulated Recall Interviews
• Interviews vs. Surveys
• Interviews vs Questionnaires
• Interviews and Interrogations
• How to Transcribe Interviews?
• Verbatim Transcription
• Clean Interview Transcriptions
• Manual Interview Transcription
• Automated Interview Transcription
• How to Annotate Research Interviews?
• Formatting and Anonymizing Interviews
• Analyzing Interviews
• Coding Interviews
• Reporting & Presenting Interview Findings

Advantages of Interviews in Research

Interviews are an essential part of the research process, whether used to gather data for a news article, explore a specific research topic, or understand the intricacies of someone's life story. Interviews provide unique insights into phenomena from the perspective of individuals, offering in-depth information that other methods for collecting primary data may not capture. In this article, we will go over the main advantages of interviews and examples showing why they are so important in qualitative research.

Whether it is a phone interview or a traditional in-person interview, the advantages of interviews lie in the richness of qualitative data they provide. Through in-person interviews, researchers gain access to firsthand experiences and personal perceptions of the phenomenon under study. This level of detail is difficult to achieve through other data collection methods like surveys , focus groups , or general literature reviews .

In-depth interviews allow researchers to dive deep into the information collected via interviewees' responses and body language. Unlike surveys, which may restrict responses to predetermined options, interviews encourage participants to elaborate on their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This results in detailed data that can reveal new insights and spur the development of new theories.

Interviews can also give voice to populations that might otherwise remain unheard. For instance, the "man on the street" interviews, popularized in the 1930s by radio programs, are a classic example of interview methods used to capture the public's opinions. Today, these interview methods are still prevalent in journalism, particularly in news broadcasts and documentaries, to gauge public sentiment quickly.

In qualitative research, interviews hold great importance because they place the participant at the center of the research project, ensuring that their voice and perspectives are prioritized. Interviews are especially effective for capturing personal narratives, stories, and life histories. This makes them ideal for research focused on biography, identity, and personal development. Through interviews, researchers can document individual journeys, challenges, and transformations, providing a rich tapestry of human experience.

In qualitative research, interviews are a widely used method that provides deep, rich data that can uncover the complexities of human experience. Interviews allow researchers to explore issues that may not be fully understood or captured through other data collection methods such as surveys or focus groups. The interview process will enable researchers to thoroughly explore a participant’s feelings, thoughts, and experiences. Open-ended questions let participants express themselves freely, offering insights that might not emerge in other methods like surveys or focus groups. Open-ended questions enable participants to express themselves freely and let researchers to ask valuable follow-up questions that arise at the moment.

Participant-focused

Interviews place the participant at the center of the research process and give high importance to the participant's voice and perspective, which leads to more authentic and participant-driven research findings. This is particularly valuable in research that looks at marginalized or underrepresented groups.

Research interviews can be conducted in ways that are sensitive to the cultural and social contexts of participants. Researchers can tailor their questions to align with the participant's cultural background, language, and social norms, leading to qualitative data that is more reflective of the participant's lived reality.

The conversational nature of interviews enables participants to express their thoughts and experiences in their own words. This allows for the discovery of new themes or ideas that the researcher may not have anticipated. With in-person interviews, researchers can also attend to body language and other non-verbal communication that can give further information.

Flexible and personalized

The flexibility inherent in interviews is another advantage of this data collection method. Follow-up questions are vital for obtaining accurate and comprehensive research findings which can be completely missed in data collection methods using only multiple-choice questions. When the research interview is conducted in person, non-verbal cues such as body language, facial expressions, and tone of voice provide additional context and meaning to verbal responses. This is a significant advantage over methods like online interviews or phone interviews, where such cues may be absent or harder to interpret.

Personalization is also a crucial advantage of in-person interviews. Researchers can tailor the interview questions and adapt the interview process to accommodate the specific needs of the research topic. This is especially useful when dealing with complex or sensitive topics, where ethical considerations are paramount. Customization in interviews provides researchers with a unique approach to data collection. Whether using structured interviews, semi-structured interviews, or unstructured interviews , the method can be adapted to suit the research methods being employed. Customization also involves adapting to the interviewee's language, comfort levels, and other cultural sensitivities.

When conducted over time, interviews can provide longitudinal insights into how participants' views, experiences, or behaviours evolve. This is particularly valuable in research that seeks to understand changes over time, such as studies on personal growth, adaptation, or the impact of long-term interventions.

Potential for new theories

In qualitative research, interviews can be used to develop new theories or refine existing ones. By analyzing data collected from interviews, researchers can identify patterns, themes, and relationships that contribute to the development of theoretical frameworks . The open-ended nature of interview questions, coupled with the interviewer's possibility to adapt their questions according to the flow of the conversation, provides ample room for unanticipated ideas or insights to emerge.

Interviews are about obtaining detailed data and understanding how participants arrive at their answers. This focus on process allows researchers to comprehend how participants make sense of their experiences, how they construct meaning, and how they navigate complex issues. Such insights into cognitive and emotional processes are invaluable in qualitative research.

Dynamic interactions

Unlike other qualitative research methods, interviews allow for dynamic interaction between the interviewer and the participant. This interaction can lead to the co-construction of knowledge, where both parties contribute to shaping the data. This dynamic process can reveal insights that are more reflective of the participant's thoughts and feelings.

In qualitative research, interviews can be used alongside other methods such as focus groups, observations, or document analysis to triangulate insights. This helps to validate findings and ensures a more comprehensive understanding of the research question.

Ethical and confidential

Interviews allow researchers to approach sensitive topics ethically. Researchers can build trust with participants, ensure confidentiality, and provide support if difficult emotions or topics arise during the interview. This makes interviews particularly suitable for research on sensitive or traumatic experiences.

Interviews can uncover tacit knowledge—insights that participants may not even realize they possess or are difficult to articulate. Researchers can help participants express these deeply embedded insights through careful questioning and probing.

Analyze your interview transcriptions with ATLAS.ti

Turn your transcriptions into key insights with our powerful tools. Download a free trial today.

Interviews and their different methods of delivery also have advantages of their own. This section will introduce the most common types of interviews and their advantages.

Focus groups

Focus group interviews can be advantageous because of the non-verbal communication they offer such as body language and facial expressions that come from interacting in groups. Focus groups give information through the interaction between participants. They produce rich perspectives as participants comment and build upon each other's answers. Focus groups also provide a safe space for those who feel more at ease expressing themselves in a group setting.

Face-to-face interviews

In-person interviews are particularly advantageous in qualitative research because they offer an additional layer of information as the researcher can see non-verbal communication such as gestures, and body expressions. This provides insight into the participant's feelings and reactions to questions or themes. This presents a great advantage compared to methods that use verbal communication solely because it adds complexity to the answers and emotions are more transparent. Face-to-face interviews also offer a faster establishment of rapport and trust and interviewers can adapt the interviews based on verbal responses.

Telephone interviews

When it comes to bridging distances, telephone interviews are among the best. They bridge distance and provide direct communication, which can sometimes impede if a person is far away from the interviewer or if access to the internet is scarce. It can also provide a safe space for those who do not feel comfortable sharing information in person due to sensitive issues. They are also cost-effective and scheduling and

Email interviews

Asynchronous communication is one of the key advantages of email interviews. They are also low-pressure for introverted participants who rather not do an interview face-to-face. In a similar way to telephone interviews, email interviews bridge distances and help diversify the pool of participants. They are also useful when the language is different from the interviewer as the use of translators can open communication doors.

Here are some real cases where the advantages of interviews played a crucial role in the success of qualitative research:

Gender construction research

In Becoming a Gendered Body: Practices of Preschools (Martin, 1998), data was collected through direct observations and semi-structured in-person interviews. Over 50 hours of observation were conducted in five preschool classrooms, where Martin documented daily activities, interactions, and routines, paying close attention to how gendered behaviours were enacted and encouraged by both teachers and students. She observed how children were expected to sit, play, and move differently based on their gender, revealing the subtle ways in which gender norms were reinforced in early childhood education.

To complement these observations, Martin conducted semi-structured interviews with preschool teachers, exploring their perspectives on gender and the practices they used in the classroom. These interviews provided rich qualitative data on how teachers understood their role in promoting or challenging gender norms. By combining observational data with interviews, Martin was able to offer a comprehensive analysis of how gender is socially constructed and reinforced in preschool settings.

The 'Up Series' documentary films

The Up series is a groundbreaking British documentary film project that follows the lives of fourteen individuals from different social backgrounds in the United Kingdom, beginning in 1964 when they were seven years old. The series was conceived by Granada Television and initially directed by Paul Almond, with subsequent installments directed by Michael Apted, who continued the project until he died in 2021. The premise of the series is rooted in the idea that social class and circumstances could predict the future of these children, encapsulated in the Jesuit saying, "Give me a child until he is seven, and I will show you the man."

Every seven years, a new installment of the series has been released, documenting the participants' lives as they navigate various stages of life—childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and middle age.

In the Up Series, data collection was done through a longitudinal documentary approach, where in-depth, semi-structured in-person interviews were conducted with the same group of participants every seven years. The series also collects visual and behavioural data by video-documenting the participants in their everyday environments, providing insights into their social and economic conditions.

Challenges faced by women in career progression

In 2020, Goriss-Hunter and White conducted a study using asynchronous email interviews to investigate the career experiences of women at an Australian regional university. The researchers gathered data from 21 participants, including both academic and professional staff, by asking open-ended questions about career barriers and enablers. The results indicated that participants faced significant challenges, particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Themes such as limited access to professional development, gendered workplace expectations, and work-life balance struggles were prominent. The flexibility of email interviews allowed participants to respond in their own time, facilitating in-depth reflections (Goriss-Hunter & White, 2020).

Interviews are a valuable data collection method in qualitative research due to their ability to provide deep, rich data. They allow for exploring complex issues, offer a participant-centred approach, and are sensitive to cultural and social contexts. Interviews facilitate the development of new theories and emphasize the process through which participants make sense of their experiences. They are also particularly effective for capturing personal narratives and offer flexibility in questioning, making them adaptable to the flow of conversation.

Interviews also allow for the triangulation of data when used alongside other methods and can provide longitudinal insights when conducted over time. They enable researchers to approach sensitive topics ethically, ensuring confidentiality and support for participants. Additionally, interviews can uncover tacit knowledge—insights that are deeply embedded in participants' experiences but not easily articulated. Overall, interviews are a versatile and powerful method for understanding complex human experiences and social phenomena.

• Martin, K. A. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices of preschools. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 494–511. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657264
• Goriss-Hunter, A., White, K. Using email interviews to reflect on women’s careers at a regional university. Aust. Educ. Res. 51, 651–665 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-023-00617-9

Use ATLAS.ti at every step of your interviews

From writing your transcript to developing key insights, ATLAS.ti is there for you. See how with a free trial.

Research Design Review

A discussion of qualitative & quantitative research design, strengths & limitations of the in-depth interview method: an overview.

The following is a modified excerpt from Applied Qualitative Research Design: A Total Quality Framework Approach (Roller & Lavrakas, 2015, pp. 56-57).

An additional strength of the IDI method is the flexibility of the interview format, which allows the interviewer to tailor the order in which questions are asked, modify the question wording as appropriate, ask follow-up questions to clarify interviewees’ responses, and use indirect questions (e.g., the use of projective techniques ) to stimulate subconscious opinions or recall. It should be noted, however, that “flexibility” does not mean a willy-nilly approach to interviewing, and, indeed, the interviewer should employ quality measures such as those outlined in “Applying a Quality Framework to the In-depth Interview Method.”

A third key strength of the IDI method—analyzability of the data—is a byproduct of the interviewer–interviewee relationship and the depth of interviewing techniques, which produce a granularity in the IDI data that is rich in fine details and serves as the basis for deciphering the narrative within each interview. These details also enable researchers to readily identify where they agree or disagree with the meanings of codes and themes associated with specific responses, which ultimately leads to the identification of themes and connections across interview participants.

Limitations

The IDI method also presents challenges and limitations that deserve the researcher’s attention. The most important, from a Total Quality Framework standpoint, has to do with what is also considered a key strength of the IDI method: the interviewer–interviewee relationship. There are two key aspects of the relationship that can potentially limit (or even undermine) the effectiveness of the IDI method: the interviewer and the social context. The main issue with respect to the interviewer is his/her potential for biasing the information that is gathered. This can happen due to  (a) personal characteristics such as gender, age, race, ethnicity, and education (e.g., a 60-year-old Caucasian male interviewer may stifle or skew responses from young, female, African American participants); (b) personal values or beliefs (e.g., an interviewer with strongly held beliefs about global warming and its damaging impact on the environment may “tune out” or misconstrue the comments from interviewees who believe global warming is a myth); and/or (c) other factors (e.g., an interviewer’s stereotyping, misinterpreting, and/or presumptions about the interviewee based solely on the interviewee’s outward appearance). Any of these characteristics may negatively influence an interviewee’s responses to the researcher’s questions and/or the accuracy of the interviewer’s data gathering. A result of these interviewer effects may be the “difficulty of seeing the people as complex, and . . . a reduction of their humanity to a stereotypical, flat, one-dimensional paradigm” (Krumer-Nevo, 2002, p. 315).

The second key area of concern with the IDI method is related to the broader social context of the relationship, particularly what Kvale (2006) calls the “power dynamics” within the interview environment, characterized by the possibility of “a one-way dialogue” whereby “the interviewer rules the interview” (p. 484). It is important, therefore, for the researcher to carefully consider the social interactions that are integral to the interviewing process and the possible impact these interactions may have on the credibility of an IDI study. For example, the trained interviewer will maximize the social interaction by utilizing positive engagement techniques such as establishing rapport (i.e., being approachable), asking thoughtful questions that indicate the interviewer is listening carefully to the interviewee, and knowing when to stay silent and let the interviewee talk freely.

Krumer-Nevo, M. (2002). The arena of othering: A life-story study with women living in poverty and social marginality. Qualitative Social Work , 1 (3), 303–318.

Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry , 12 (3), 480–500.

Image captured from: https://upgradedhumans.com/2015/10/21/a-mile-wide-and-an-inch-deep/

Share this:

• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to print (Opens in new window)

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Interviews in Social Research: Advantages and Disadvantages

The strengths of unstructured interviews are that they are respondent led, flexible, allow empathy and can be empowering, the limitations are poor reliability due to interviewer characteristics and bias, time, and low representativeness.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on September 11, 2023 by Karl Thompson

An interview involves an interviewer asking questions verbally to a respondent. Interviews involve a more direct interaction between the researcher and the respondent than questionnaires. Interviews can either be conducted face to face, via phone, video link or social media.

This post has primarily been written for students studying the Research Methods aspect of A-level sociology, but it should also be useful for students studying methods for psychology, business studies and maybe other subjects too!

Types of interview

Structured or formal interviews are those in which the interviewer asks the interviewee the same questions in the same way to different respondents. This will typically involve reading out questions from a pre-written and pre-coded structured questionnaire, which forms the interview schedule. The most familiar form of this is with market research, where you may have been stopped on the street with a researcher ticking boxes based on your responses.

Unstructured or Informal interviews (also called discovery interviews) are more like a guided conversation. Here the interviewer has a list of topics they want the respondent to talk about, but the interviewer has complete freedom to vary the specific questions from respondent to respondent, so they can follow whatever lines of enquiry they think are most appropriated, depending on the responses given by each respondent.

Semi-Structured interviews are those in which respondents have a list of questions, but they are free to ask further, differentiated questions based on the responses given. This allows more flexibility that the structured interview yet more structure than the informal interview.

Group interviews – Interviews can be conducted either one to one (individual interviews) or in a a group, in which the interviewer interviews two or more respondents at a time. Group discussions among respondents may lead to deeper insight than just interviewing people along, as respondents ‘encourage’ each other.

Focus groups are a type of group interview in which respondents are asked to discuss certain topics.

Interviews: key terms

The Interview Schedule – A list of questions or topic areas the interviewer wishes to ask or cover in the course of the interview. The more structured the interview, the more rigid the interiew schedule will be. Before conducting an interview it is usual for the reseracher to know something about the topic area and the respondents themselves, and so they will have at least some idea of the questions they are likely to ask: even if they are doing ‘unstructred interviews’ an interviewer will have some kind of interview schedule, even if it is just a list of broad topic areas to discuss, or an opening question.

Transcription of interviews -Transcription is the process of writing down (or typing up) what respondents say in an interview. In order to be able to transcribe effectively interviews will need to be recorded.

The problem of Leading Questions – In Unstructured Interviews, the interviewer should aim to avoid asking leading questions.

The Strengths and Limitations of Unstructured Interviews 

The strengths of unstructured interviews

The key strength of unstructured interviews is good validity , but for this to happen questioning should be as open ended as possible to gain genuine, spontaneous information rather than ‘rehearsed responses’ and questioning needs to be sufficient enough to elicit in-depth answers rather than glib, easy answers.

Respondent led – unstructured interviews are ‘respondent led’ – this is because the researcher listens to what the respondent says and then asks further questions based on what the respondent says. This should allow respondents to express themselves and explain their views more fully than with structured interviews.

Flexibility – the researcher can change his or her mind about what the most important questions are as the interview develops. Unstructured Interviews thus avoid the imposition problem – respondents are less constrained than with structured interviews or questionnaires in which the questions are written in advance by the researcher. This is especially advantageous in group interviews, where interaction between respondents can spark conversations that the interviewer hadn’t thought would of happened in advance, which could then be probed further with an unstructured methodology.

Rapport and empathy – unstructured interviews encourage a good rapport between interviewee and interviewer. Because of their informal nature, like guided conversations, unstructured interviews are more likely to make respondents feel at ease than with the more formal setting of a structured questionnaire or experiment. This should encourage openness, trust and empathy.

Checking understanding – unstructured interviews also allow the interviewer to check understanding. If an interviewee doesn’t understand a question, the interviewer is free to rephrase it, or to ask follow up questions to clarify aspects of answers that were not clear in the first instance.

Unstructured interviews are good for sensitive topics because they are more likely to make respondents feel at ease with the interviewer. They also allow the interviewer to show more sympathy (if required) than with the colder more mechanical quantitative methods.

They are good for finding out why respondents do not do certain things . For example postal surveys asking why people do not claim benefits have very low response rates, but informal interviews are perfect for researching people who may have low literacy skills.

Empowerment for respondents – the researcher and respondents are on a more equal footing than with more quantitative methods. The researcher doesn’t assume they know best. This empowers the respondents. Feminists researchers in particular believe that the unstructured interview can neutralise the hierarchical, exploitative power relations that they believe to be inherent in the more traditional interview structure. They see the traditional interview as a site for the exploitation and subordination of women, with the interviewers potentially creating outcomes against their interviewees’ interests. In traditional interview formats the interviewer directs the questioning and takes ownership of the material; in the feminist (unstructured) interview method the woman would recount her experiences in her own words with the interviewer serving only as a guide to the account.

Practical advantages – there are few practical advantages with this method, but compared to full-blown participant observation, they are a relatively quick method for gaining in-depth data. They are also a good method to combine with overt participant observation in order to get respondents to further explain the meanings behind their actions. So in short, they are impractical, unless you’re in the middle of a year long Participant Observation study (it’s all relative!).

The Limitations of unstructured interviews

The main theoretical disadvantage is the lack of reliability – unstructured Interviews lack reliability because each interview is unique – a variety of different questions are asked and phrased in a variety of different ways to different respondents.

They are also difficult to repeat, because the s uccess of the interview depends on the bond of trust between the researcher and the respondent – another researcher who does not relate to the respondent may thus get different answers. Group interviews are especially difficult to repeat, given that the dynamics of the interview are influenced not just by the values of the researcher, but also by group dynamics. One person can change the dynamic of a group of three or four people enormously.

Validity can be undermined in several ways:

• respondents might prefer to give rational responses rather than fuller emotional ones (it’s harder to talk frankly about emotions with strangers)
• respondents may not reveal their true thoughts and feelings because they do not coincide with their own self-image, so they simply withhold information
• respondents may give answers they think the interviewer wants to hear, in attempt to please them!

We also need to keep in mind that interviews can only tap into what people SAY about their values, beliefs and actions, we don’t actually get to see these in action, like we would do with observational studies such as Participant Observation. This has been a particular problem with self-report studies of criminal behaviour. These have been tested using polygraphs, and follow up studies of school and criminal records and responses found to be lacking in validity, so much so that victim-surveys have become the standard method for measuring crime rather than self-report studies.

Interviewer bias might undermine the validity of unstructured interviews – this is where the values of the researcher interfere with the results. The researcher may give away whether they approve or disapprove of certain responses in their body language or tone of voice (or wording of probing questions) and this in turn might encourage or discourage respondents from being honest.

The characteristics of the interviewer might also bias the results and undermine the validity – how honest the respondent is in the course of an hour long interview might depend on the class, gender, or ethnicity of the interviewer.

Sudman and Bradburn (1974) conducted a review of literature and found that responses varied depending on the relative demographics of the interviewer and respondent. For example white interviewers received more socially acceptable responses from black respondents than they did from white respondents. Similar findings have been found with different ethnicities, age, social class and religion.

Unstructured interviews also lack representativeness – because they are time consuming, it is difficult to get a large enough sample to be representative of large populations.

It is difficult to quantify data , compare answers and find stats and trends because the data gained is qualitative.

Practical disadvantages – unstructured Interviews may take a relatively long time to conduct. Some interviews can take hours. They also need to be taped and transcribed, and in the analysis phase there may be a lot of information that is not directly relevant to one’s research topic that needs to be sifted through.

Interpersonal skills and training – A further practical problem is that some researchers may lack the interpersonal skills required to conduct informal unstructured interviews. Training might need to be more thorough for researchers undertaking unstructured interviews – to avoid the problem of interviewer bias.

Shapiro and Eberhart (1947) showed that interviewers who were more prepared to probe received fuller answers, and both response rate and extensiveness of response are greater for more experienced interviewers.

There are few ethical problems , assuming that informed consent is gained and confidentially ensured. Although having said this, the fact that the researcher is getting more in-depth data, more of an insight into who the person really is, does offer the potential for the information to do more harm to the respondent if it got into the wrong hands (but this in turn depends on the topics discussed and the exact content of the interviews.

Sociological perspectives on interviews

Interviews of any kind are not a preferred method for positivists because there is no guarantee that responses aren’t artefacts of the interview situation, rather than a reflection of underlying social reality.

If interviews must be used, Positivists prefer structured interviews that follow a standardised schedule, with each question asked to each respondent in the same way. Interviewers should be neutral, show no emotion, avoid suggesting replies, and not skip questions.

Fo r Interactionists , interviews are based on mutual participant observation. The context of the interview is intrinsic to understanding responses and no distinction between research interviews and other social interaction is recognised. Data are valid when mutual understanding between interviewer and respondent is agreed.

Interactionists prefer non-standardised interviews because they allow respondents to shape the interview according to their own world view.

Denzin (2009) goes as far as to argue that what positivists might perceive as problems with interviews are not problems, just part of the process and thus as valid as the data collected. Thus issues of self-presentation, the power relations between interviewer and respondent and opportunities for fabrication are all part of the context and part of the valid-reality that we are trying to get to.

Related Posts

For more posts on research methods please see my research methods page.

Examples of studies using interviews – Using Interviews to research education .

Participant Observation  –   A related qualitative research method – detailed class notes on overt and covert participant observation. 

Please click here to return to the homepage – ReviseSociology.com

Recommended further reading: Gilbert and Stoneman (2016) Researching Social Life

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

3 thoughts on “Interviews in Social Research: Advantages and Disadvantages”

• Pingback: White Working Class Men | ReviseSociology
• Pingback: Learning to Labour by Paul Willis – Summary and Evaluation of Research Methods | ReviseSociology

Reblogged this on Urban speeches .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• University Libraries
• Research Guides
• Topic Guides
• Research Methods Guide
• Interview Research

Research Methods Guide: Interview Research

• Introduction
• Research Design & Method
• Survey Research
• Data Analysis
• Resources & Consultation

Tutorial Videos: Interview Method

Interview as a Method for Qualitative Research

Goals of Interview Research

• Preferences
• They help you explain, better understand, and explore research subjects' opinions, behavior, experiences, phenomenon, etc.
• Interview questions are usually open-ended questions so that in-depth information will be collected.

Mode of Data Collection

There are several types of interviews, including:

• Face-to-Face
• Online (e.g. Skype, Googlehangout, etc)

FAQ: Conducting Interview Research

What are the important steps involved in interviews?

• Think about who you will interview
• Think about what kind of information you want to obtain from interviews
• Think about why you want to pursue in-depth information around your research topic
• Introduce yourself and explain the aim of the interview
• Devise your questions so interviewees can help answer your research question
• Have a sequence to your questions / topics by grouping them in themes
• Make sure you can easily move back and forth between questions / topics
• Make sure your questions are clear and easy to understand
• Do not ask leading questions
• Do you want to bring a second interviewer with you?
• Do you want to bring a notetaker?
• Do you want to record interviews? If so, do you have time to transcribe interview recordings?
• Where will you interview people? Where is the setting with the least distraction?
• How long will each interview take?
• Do you need to address terms of confidentiality?

Do I have to choose either a survey or interviewing method?

No.  In fact, many researchers use a mixed method - interviews can be useful as follow-up to certain respondents to surveys, e.g., to further investigate their responses.

Is training an interviewer important?

Yes, since the interviewer can control the quality of the result, training the interviewer becomes crucial.  If more than one interviewers are involved in your study, it is important to have every interviewer understand the interviewing procedure and rehearse the interviewing process before beginning the formal study.

• << Previous: Survey Research
• Next: Data Analysis >>
• Last Updated: Aug 21, 2023 10:42 AM

14 Advantages and Disadvantages of Interviews

Interviews are a commonly utilized method in the hiring process between interviewer and interviewee.

They offer several advantages and disadvantages for both the interviewer and the interviewee.

This article will explore the different types of interviews, their advantages and disadvantages, and the potential biases that can arise during the interview process.

• Redaction Team
• September 2, 2023
• Professional Development

Advantages of Interviews

• Rich Data Collection : Interviews allow for in-depth and rich data collection. They provide an opportunity to gather detailed information, insights, and nuances that may not be captured through other data collection methods.
• Personal Connection : Interviews create a personal connection between the interviewer and the interviewee, which can foster trust and open communication. This can lead to more honest and candid responses.
• Flexibility : Interviews can be structured or unstructured, allowing for flexibility in the questioning approach. Researchers or interviewers can adapt their questions based on the interviewee's responses, enabling a deeper exploration of topics.
• Clarification : Interviews provide an opportunity to seek clarification on unclear or ambiguous responses. Follow-up questions can help ensure that the interviewer fully understands the interviewee's perspective.
• Contextual Understanding : Interviews are useful for gaining a deeper understanding of the interviewee's context, experiences, and motivations. This is particularly valuable in research or investigative settings.
• Immediate Feedback : In employment interviews, immediate feedback can be provided to candidates, helping them understand their performance and areas for improvement.

Disadvantages of Interviews

• Subjectivity : Interviews can be subject to bias, both on the part of the interviewer and the interviewee. This can lead to skewed or inaccurate information.
• Limited Sample Size : Interviews are time-consuming and resource-intensive, making it challenging to conduct them with a large sample size. This limits the generalizability of the findings.
• Social Desirability Bias : Interviewees may provide responses that they believe are socially acceptable or that align with the interviewer's expectations, rather than their true opinions or experiences.
• Interviewer Effect : The skills and demeanor of the interviewer can impact the interviewee's responses. Some interviewees may feel more comfortable with certain interviewers, leading to variations in data.
• Time-Consuming : Conducting interviews can be time-consuming, both in terms of preparation and the actual interview process. This may not be practical for large-scale data collection.
• Resource Intensive : Interviews require resources such as trained interviewers, facilities, and equipment. This can make them costly compared to other data collection methods.
• Interviewee Discomfort : Some interviewees may feel uncomfortable or anxious during interviews, which can affect the quality and honesty of their responses.
• Limited Reproducibility : In research settings, interviews may be challenging to reproduce exactly, making it difficult to validate findings through replication.

Types of Interviews

Structured interviews.

Structured interviews are the most common type of interview. In this type of interview, the interviewer follows a predetermined set of questions and evaluates the responses based on a standardized scoring system. One of the advantages of a structured interview is that it allows for consistent evaluation of candidates, ensuring that each candidate is assessed on the same criteria. This makes it easier to compare candidates and make informed hiring decisions. Some interviews can be held online, which is an advantage of video conferencing .

However, structured interviews can also have disadvantages. Some candidates may feel that the interview is too rigid and does not allow them to fully showcase their skills and abilities. Additionally, the structured format may not provide enough room for the interviewee to ask questions or engage in a meaningful conversation with the interviewer.

Unstructured Interviews

Unstructured interviews are the opposite of structured interviews. In this type of interview, the interviewer does not follow a specific set of questions. Instead, they have a general topic or theme and engage in a more conversational style of interviewing. Unstructured interviews allow for a more relaxed atmosphere and give the interviewee the opportunity to express themselves more freely.

However, unstructured interviews can also have disadvantages. Since there is no set structure or scoring system, it can be difficult to compare candidates objectively. The lack of structure can also lead to personal biases on the part of the interviewer, as their own preferences and opinions can influence the evaluation process. Additionally, unstructured interviews can be more time-consuming for both the interviewer and the interviewee.

Panel Interview

A panel interview involves multiple interviewers and one interviewee. This type of interview allows for different perspectives and opinions to be considered when evaluating a candidate. Panel interviews can be particularly useful when hiring for a position that requires teamwork or collaboration.

However, panel interviews may also have disadvantages. The presence of multiple interviewers can be intimidating for the interviewee, which may affect their performance. Additionally, panel interviews can be more difficult to coordinate and schedule, especially if the panel members have conflicting schedules.

Overall, interviews are a great way to gather information about potential candidates for a position. They allow for a more personal interaction between the interviewer and the respondent, and they provide an opportunity for the applicant to showcase their skills and qualifications.

However, it is important to recognize the potential disadvantages of interviews. Personal biases on the part of the interviewer can impact the evaluation process, leading to a less objective assessment of candidates. Additionally, interviews can be time-consuming and may not always provide an accurate representation of a candidate’s abilities.

When conducting interviews, it is crucial to develop a structured and standardized approach to minimize personal bias and ensure fair evaluation of candidates. This can involve using a standardized set of questions, developing a scoring system, and involving multiple interviewers to provide different perspectives.

In conclusion, interviews are an important part of the recruitment process and offer several advantages and disadvantages. It is essential to understand the different types of interviews, their strengths and weaknesses, and the potential biases that can arise during the interview process. By acknowledging and addressing these factors, organizations can make more informed hiring decisions and find the right fit for their team.

Conclusion of Advantages and Disadvantages of Interviews

In conclusion, to transcribe interviews are a valuable tool for collecting qualitative data and gaining insights into individuals’ thoughts, experiences, and perspectives. 

However, they have limitations related to subjectivity, bias, resource requirements, and potential issues with sample size and generalizability. Researchers and interviewers should carefully consider these advantages and disadvantages when choosing interviews as a data collection method and take steps to mitigate potential biases and limitations.

Privacy Overview

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 10: Qualitative Data Collection & Analysis Methods

10.7 Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews

As the preceding sections have suggested, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. Whatever topic is of interest to the researcher can be explored in much more depth by employing this method than with almost any other method. Not only are participants given the opportunity to elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods, such as survey research, but, in addition, they are able share information with researchers in their own words and from their own perspectives, rather than attempting to fit those perspectives into the perhaps limited response options provided by the researcher. Because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes, or the “how” of various phenomena. Yet another, and sometimes overlooked, benefit of qualitative interviews that occurs in person is that researchers can make observations beyond those that a respondent is orally reporting. A respondent’s body language, and even her or his choice of time and location for the interview, might provide a researcher with useful data.

As with quantitative survey research, qualitative interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall whatever details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors are being examined. Qualitative interviewing is also time-intensive and can be quite expensive. Creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, and conducting interviews are just the beginning of the process. Transcribing interviews is labor-intensive, even before coding begins. It is also not uncommon to offer respondents some monetary incentive or thank-you for participating, because you are asking for more of the participants’ time than if you had mailed them a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. Conducting qualitative interviews is not only labor intensive but also emotionally taxing. Researchers embarking on a qualitative interview project with a subject that is sensitive in nature should keep in mind their own abilities to listen to stories that may be difficult to hear.

Research Methods for the Social Sciences: An Introduction Copyright © 2020 by Valerie Sheppard is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Human-centered research: The benefits of conducting face-to-face interviews for qualitative research

Key highlights.

• Face-to-face interviews foster trust, engagement, and nonverbal communication for deeper insights.
• Real-time adaptation allows dynamic exploration and holistic understanding of participants and their environment.
• Creating a comfortable environment, active listening, probing, and follow-up questions enhance the effectiveness of face-to-face interviews.
• Despite challenges, face-to-face interviews remain crucial in qualitative research, emphasizing genuine human interaction and dialogue.

While online surveys have surged in popularity, face-to-face interviewing remains a vital qualitative research tool. Why? Research shows that conversational interviewing is more effective at improving understanding, reducing acquiescence, and even outperforming virtual interviews on sensitive topics. Face-to-face encounters offer a wealth of information that static questionnaires cannot. It captures the nuances of human interaction, the subtle shifts in tone and body language that online surveys miss entirely. This dynamic interplay offers researchers a richer, more accurate understanding of participants’ perspectives and experiences.

Furthermore, studies show that face-to-face interactions significantly boost response rates. From persuasive arguments to addressing hesitations, it can bridge the gap between reluctant participants and insightful data. Complex surveys, where clarification and probing questions are crucial, benefit greatly from this personal touch.

However, the advantages extend beyond mere participation. In this article, we will list the benefits of conducting face-to-face interviews for qualitative research and the best practices to keep in mind.

Advantages of face-to-face interviews in qualitative research

Face-to-face interviews go beyond simply collecting data – they forge a connection that unlocks a hidden wealth of information. Here are some key advantages that set them apart from other qualitative research methods:

Enhanced rapport and engagement

Face-to-face interaction fosters trust and rapport between interviewer and participant. Nonverbal cues like eye contact, smiles, and nods create a sense of shared understanding and encourage participants to feel comfortable, leading to more open and engaged responses. This rapport also allows the interviewer to adapt their approach based on the participant’s emotional state and level of understanding, resulting in a more tailored and productive interview.

Nonverbal communication and body language analysis

Beyond spoken words, nonverbal communication provides a rich layer of information that online surveys simply cannot capture. Facial expressions, gestures, and posture can reveal emotions, hesitations, and even hidden meanings that contradict or complement verbal responses. Trained interviewers can analyze these nonverbal cues to gain a deeper understanding of the participant’s experience and identify inconsistencies or unspoken truths.

Flexibility in exploring unexpected insights

Unlike scripted online surveys, face-to-face interviews allow for real-time adaptation and follow-up questions. This flexibility enables the interviewer to delve deeper into unexpected avenues that emerge during the conversation. A seemingly insignificant side comment could uncover a new perspective or shed light on an unknown aspect of the topic. This dynamic exploration empowers the researcher to gather richer and more nuanced data.

Depth of insights through observation and interaction

Beyond verbal and nonverbal communication, face-to-face interviews allow for observation of the participant’s environment, behavior, and interactions. This can include factors like the participant’s workspace, family dynamics, or even how they react to specific questions. These observations, combined with the interview itself, create a holistic picture of the individual and their experience, providing a depth of insight unmatched by other methods.

Techniques and best practices in face-to-face interviews

Conducting effective face-to-face interviews requires careful planning and skilled execution. Here are some key techniques and best practices:

Creating a comfortable environment for participants

The interview setting should be free from distractions and conducive to open communication. This includes choosing a quiet location, ensuring privacy, and establishing a welcoming and friendly atmosphere. The interviewer’s demeanor should be professional yet approachable, putting the participant at ease and encouraging open dialogue.

Active listening and follow-up questions

Effective interviewing is not simply asking questions, it’s actively listening to the participant’s responses and building on them through follow-up questions. This involves demonstrating attentiveness, using verbal cues like “mm-hmm” or “I see,” and asking clarifying questions to ensure understanding. Probing deeper with open-ended questions like “Can you tell me more about that?” or “How did that make you feel?” can elicit insightful details and uncover hidden thoughts or emotions.

Utilizing probing techniques for deeper insights

Beyond basic follow-up questions, several probing techniques can help explore complex topics and uncover deeper insights. Techniques like mirroring, reflecting back key words or phrases, can encourage elaboration and clarification. Using gentle confrontation – politely challenging inconsistencies or asking for further explanation – can reveal contradictions or hidden narratives. Silence can also be a powerful tool, allowing the participant time to ponder and elaborate on their thoughts.

Use cases: Which situations are best-suited for face-to-face interviews?

While face-to-face interviews offer considerable advantages, they are not always the most efficient or practical approach. Here are some situations where they are particularly effective:

• Exploring sensitive topics : When dealing with sensitive or personal subjects, the trust and rapport built through face-to-face interaction can encourage participants to open up and share experiences they might otherwise withhold.
• Understanding complex phenomena : For intricate topics or situations where nuances and context are crucial, face-to-face interaction allows for detailed exploration and avoids potentially misleading interpretations that could occur in written responses.
• Gathering rich qualitative data:  When in-depth understanding and detailed narrative accounts are necessary, face-to-face interviews provide the ideal platform for capturing rich qualitative data that goes beyond simple facts and figures.
• Building relationships with participants:  If ongoing collaboration or follow-up with participants is anticipated, face-to-face interviews can establish a personal connection and rapport that facilitates future interactions.

By using the right techniques and applying them in suitable situations, face-to-face interviews can help researchers tap into insights and pave the way for richer, more in-depth qualitative research.

Related reading:   CATI vs CAWI: Exploring the best approach for qualitative research

Although face-to-face interviews can yield a lot of valuable data, challenges exist. Building rapport with diverse participants, navigating sensitive topics, and minimizing interviewer bias require careful planning and ethical considerations. Thorough training for interviewers, ensuring cultural sensitivity, and maintaining participant anonymity can help overcome these hurdles.

Despite these challenges, face-to-face interviews remain an essential pillar of human-centered research in the digital age. In a world increasingly dominated by automated data collection and impersonal interactions, they remind us that knowledge isn’t merely extracted, but forged through shared stories, emotions, and lived experiences. By prioritizing genuine human interaction and open dialogue, researchers can unlock the nuanced depths of human experiences, enriching our collective understanding of the world and its occupants.

Netscribes, with 20 years of experience in crafting impactful  primary research , brings this human-centered approach to life. Our diverse suite of research methodologies, including face-to-face interviews, ensures the right tool for every objective.

Ready to tap into the power of human stories?  Contact us today.

You may also like

Cati vs cawi: exploring the best approach for qualitative research, how to tackle challenges of conducting focus groups studies in qualitative research.

Netscribes is a global data, insights and digital fulfilment firm

Search form

You are here.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews

As the preceding sections have suggested, qualitative interviews are an excellent way to gather detailed information. Whatever topic is of interest to the researcher employing this method can be explored in much more depth than with almost any other method. Not only are participants given the opportunity to elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods such as survey research, but they also are able share information with researchers in their own words and from their own perspectives rather than being asked to fit those perspectives into the perhaps limited response options provided by the researcher. And because qualitative interviews are designed to elicit detailed information, they are especially useful when a researcher’s aim is to study social processes, or the “how” of various phenomena. Yet another, and sometimes overlooked, benefit of qualitative interviews that occurs in person is that researchers can make observations beyond those that a respondent is orally reporting. A respondent’s body language, and even her or his choice of time and location for the interview, might provide a researcher with useful data.

Of course, all these benefits do not come without some drawbacks. As with quantitative survey research, qualitative interviews rely on respondents’ ability to accurately and honestly recall whatever details about their lives, circumstances, thoughts, opinions, or behaviors that are being asked about. As Esterberg (2002) puts it, “If you want to know about what people actually do, rather than what they say they do, you should probably use observation [instead of interviews].” 1 Further, as you may have already guessed, qualitative interviewing is time intensive and can be quite expensive. Creating an interview guide, identifying a sample, and conducting interviews are just the beginning. Transcribing interviews is labor intensive—and that’s before coding even begins. It is also not uncommon to offer respondents some monetary incentive or thank-you for participating. Keep in mind that you are asking for more of participants’ time than if you’d simply mailed them a questionnaire containing closed-ended questions. Conducting qualitative interviews is not only labor intensive but also emotionally taxing. When I interviewed young workers about their sexual harassment experiences, I heard stories that were shocking, infuriating, and sad. Seeing and hearing the impact that harassment had had on respondents was difficult. Researchers embarking on a qualitative interview project should keep in mind their own abilities to hear stories that may be difficult to hear.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• In-depth interviews are semi-structured interviews where the researcher has topics and questions in mind to ask, but questions are open ended and flow according to how the participant responds to each.
• Interview guides can vary in format but should contain some outline of the topics you hope to cover during the course of an interview.
• NVivo and Atlasti are computer programs that qualitative researchers use to help them with organizing, sorting, and analyzing their data.
• Qualitative interviews allow respondents to share information in their own words and are useful for gathering detailed information and understanding social processes.
• Drawbacks of qualitative interviews include reliance on respondents’ accuracy and their intensity in terms of time, expense, and possible emotional strain.
• Based on a research question you have identified through earlier exercises in this text, write a few open-ended questions you could ask were you to conduct in-depth interviews on the topic. Now critique your questions. Are any of them yes/no questions? Are any of them leading?
• Read the open-ended questions you just created, and answer them as though you were an interview participant. Were your questions easy to answer or fairly difficult? How did you feel talking about the topics you asked yourself to discuss? How might respondents feel talking about them?
• 92423 reads
• Relevance, Balance, and Accessibility
• Different Sources of Knowledge
• Ontology and Epistemology KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• The Science of Sociology
• Specific Considerations for the Social Sciences KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Consuming Research and Living With Its Results
• Research as Employment Opportunity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Design and Goals of This Text LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Sociology at Three Different Levels KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Paradigms in Social Science
• Sociological Theories KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Inductive Approaches and Some Examples
• Deductive Approaches and Some Examples
• Complementary Approaches? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Revisiting an Earlier Question LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Human Research Versus Nonhuman Research
• A Historical Look at Research on Humans
• Institutional Review Boards KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Informed Consent
• Protection of Identities
• Disciplinary Considerations KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Ethics at Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Doing Science the Ethical Way
• Using Science the Ethical Way KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• How Do You Feel About Where You Already Are?
• What Do You Know About Where You Already Are? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Is It Empirical? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Is Sociology?
• What Is Not Sociology? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Sociologists as Paparazzi?
• Some Specific Examples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Feasibility
• Field Trip: Visit Your Library KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Exploration, Description, Explanation
• Idiographic or Nomothetic?
• Applied or Basic? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Units of Analysis and Units of Observation
• Hypotheses KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Triangulation LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Searching for Literature
• Reviewing the Literature
• Additional Important Components KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• What Do Social Scientists Measure?
• How Do Social Scientists Measure? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Concepts and Conceptualization
• A Word of Caution About Conceptualization KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Putting It All Together KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Reliability
• Validity KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Levels of Measurement
• Indexes, Scales, and Typologies KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Populations Versus Samples LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Nonprobability Sampling
• Types of Nonprobability Samples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Probability Sampling
• Types of Probability Samples KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Who Sampled, How Sampled, and for What Purpose? KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Survey Research: What Is It and When Should It Be Used? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Strengths of Survey Method
• Weaknesses of Survey Method KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Administration KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Asking Effective Questions
• Response Options
• Designing Questionnaires KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• From Completed Questionnaires to Analyzable Data
• Identifying Patterns KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Interview Research: What Is It and When Should It Be Used? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Conducting Qualitative Interviews
• Analysis of Qualitative Interview Data
• Strengths and Weaknesses of Qualitative Interviews KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Conducting Quantitative Interviews
• Analysis of Quantitative Interview Data
• Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative Interviews KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Location, Location, Location
• Researcher-Respondent Relationship KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Field Research: What Is It and When to Use It? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Strengths of Field Research
• Weaknesses of Field Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Choosing a Site
• Choosing a Role KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Writing in the Field
• Writing out of the Field KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• From Description to Analysis KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Unobtrusive Research: What Is It and When to Use It? LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Strengths of Unobtrusive Research
• Weaknesses of Unobtrusive Research KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Content Analysis
• Indirect Measures
• Analysis of Unobtrusive Data Collected by You KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Analyzing Others’ Data LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Reliability in Unobtrusive Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Focus Groups LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Experiments LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Sharing It All: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
• Knowing Your Audience KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Presenting Your Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Writing Up Research Results LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Disseminating Findings LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Reading Reports of Sociological Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Being a Responsible Consumer of Research LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Media Reports of Sociological Research LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Sociological Research: It’s Everywhere LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Evaluation Research
• Market Research
• Policy and Other Government Research KEY TAKEAWAY EXERCISE
• Doing Research for a Cause LEARNING OBJECTIVES KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISE
• Public Sociology LEARNING OBJECTIVE KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
• Transferable Skills
• Understanding Yourself, Your Circumstances, and Your World KEY TAKEAWAYS EXERCISES
•  Back Matter

This action cannot be undo.

Choose a delete action Empty this page Remove this page and its subpages

Content is out of sync. You must reload the page to continue.

New page type Book Topic Interactive Learning Content

• Config Page
• Add Page Before
• Add Page After
• Delete Page

Qualitative Interviewing

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 13 January 2019
• Cite this reference work entry

• Sally Nathan 2 ,
• Christy Newman 3 &
• Kari Lancaster 3  

4944 Accesses

27 Citations

8 Altmetric

Qualitative interviewing is a foundational method in qualitative research and is widely used in health research and the social sciences. Both qualitative semi-structured and in-depth unstructured interviews use verbal communication, mostly in face-to-face interactions, to collect data about the attitudes, beliefs, and experiences of participants. Interviews are an accessible, often affordable, and effective method to understand the socially situated world of research participants. The approach is typically informed by an interpretive framework where the data collected is not viewed as evidence of the truth or reality of a situation or experience but rather a context-bound subjective insight from the participants. The researcher needs to be open to new insights and to privilege the participant’s experience in data collection. The data from qualitative interviews is not generalizable, but its exploratory nature permits the collection of rich data which can answer questions about which little is already known. This chapter introduces the reader to qualitative interviewing, the range of traditions within which interviewing is utilized as a method, and highlights the advantages and some of the challenges and misconceptions in its application. The chapter also provides practical guidance on planning and conducting interview studies. Three case examples are presented to highlight the benefits and risks in the use of interviewing with different participants, providing situated insights as well as advice about how to go about learning to interview if you are a novice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Interviews in the social sciences

Interviewing in Qualitative Research

Baez B. Confidentiality in qualitative research: reflections on secrets, power and agency. Qual Res. 2002;2(1):35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794102002001638 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage Publications; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Braun V, Clarke V, Gray D. Collecting qualitative data: a practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bryman A. Social research methods. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.

Crotty M. The foundations of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Australia: Allen & Unwin; 1998.

Davies MB. Doing a successful research project: using qualitative or quantitative methods. New York: Palgrave MacMillan; 2007.

Dickson-Swift V, James EL, Liamputtong P. Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.

Foster M, Nathan S, Ferry M. The experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010;29(5):531–9.

Gillham B. The research interview. London: Continuum; 2000.

Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company; 1967.

Hesse-Biber SN, Leavy P. In-depth interview. In: The practice of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2011. p. 119–47

Irvine A. Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: a comparative exploration. Int J Qual Methods. 2011;10(3):202–20.

Johnson JM. In-depth interviewing. In: Gubrium JF, Holstein JA, editors. Handbook of interview research: context and method. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2001.

Kvale S. Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.

Kvale S. Doing interviews. London: Sage Publications; 2007.

Lancaster K. Confidentiality, anonymity and power relations in elite interviewing: conducting qualitative policy research in a politicised domain. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2017;20(1):93–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1123555 .

Leavy P. Method meets art: arts-based research practice. New York: Guilford Publications; 2015.

Liamputtong P. Researching the vulnerable: a guide to sensitive research methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2007.

Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.

Mays N, Pope C. Quality in qualitative health research. In: Pope C, Mays N, editors. Qualitative research in health care. London: BMJ Books; 2000. p. 89–102.

McLellan E, MacQueen KM, Neidig JL. Beyond the qualitative interview: data preparation and transcription. Field Methods. 2003;15(1):63–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x02239573 .

Minichiello V, Aroni R, Hays T. In-depth interviewing: principles, techniques, analysis. 3rd ed. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia; 2008.

Morris ZS. The truth about interviewing elites. Politics. 2009;29(3):209–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9256.2009.01357.x .

Nathan S, Foster M, Ferry M. Peer and sexual relationships in the experience of drug-dependent adolescents in a therapeutic community. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2011;30(4):419–27.

National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: Australian Government; 2007.

Neal S, McLaughlin E. Researching up? Interviews, emotionality and policy-making elites. J Soc Policy. 2009;38(04):689–707. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279409990018 .

O’Reilly M, Parker N. ‘Unsatisfactory saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qual Res. 2013;13(2):190–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446106 .

Ostrander S. “Surely you're not in this just to be helpful”: access, rapport and interviews in three studies of elites. In: Hertz R, Imber J, editors. Studying elites using qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995. p. 133–50.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Patton M. Qualitative research & evaluation methods: integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2015.

Punch KF. Introduction to social research: quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage; 2005.

Rhodes T, Bernays S, Houmoller K. Parents who use drugs: accounting for damage and its limitation. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(8):1489–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.07.028 .

Riessman CK. Narrative analysis. London: Sage; 1993.

Ritchie J. Not everything can be reduced to numbers. In: Berglund C, editor. Health research. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 149–73.

Rubin H, Rubin I. Qualitative interviewing: the art of hearing data. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2012.

Serry T, Liamputtong P. The in-depth interviewing method in health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 67–83.

Silverman D. Doing qualitative research. 5th ed. London: Sage; 2017.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (coreq): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sally Nathan

Centre for Social Research in Health, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Christy Newman & Kari Lancaster

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sally Nathan .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Nathan, S., Newman, C., Lancaster, K. (2019). Qualitative Interviewing. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_77

Published : 13 January 2019

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-10-5250-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-10-5251-4

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Benefits of participating in research interviews

Affiliation.

• 1 University of Florida Health Science Center College of Nursing, Jacksonville 32209-6511.
• PMID: 8063325
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1994.tb00937.x

Interviews are a fundamental data collection method used in qualitative health research to help understand people's responses to illness or a particular situation. The risks associated with participating in 1 or 2 hour research interviews when a study focuses on vulnerable populations and sensitive issues are scrutinized by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Human Subjects Committees. This paper shifts attention away from the risks to the benefits and describes catharsis, self-acknowledgement, sense of purpose, self-awareness, empowerment, healing, and providing a voice for the disenfranchised as the sometimes unanticipated benefits reported by interview participants.

• Interviews as Topic / methods*
• Nursing Methodology Research*
• Patient Satisfaction*
• Power, Psychological
• Self Concept
• Self Disclosure

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

U.S. Study on Puberty Blockers Goes Unpublished Because of Politics, Doctor Says

The leader of the long-running study said that the drugs did not improve mental health in children with gender distress and that the finding might be weaponized by opponents of the care.

By Azeen Ghorayshi

An influential doctor and advocate of adolescent gender treatments said she had not published a long-awaited study of puberty-blocking drugs because of the charged American political environment.

The doctor, Johanna Olson-Kennedy, began the study in 2015 as part of a broader, multimillion-dollar federal project on transgender youth. She and colleagues recruited 95 children from across the country and gave them puberty blockers , which stave off the permanent physical changes — like breasts or a deepening voice — that could exacerbate their gender distress, known as dysphoria.

The researchers followed the children for two years to see if the treatments improved their mental health. An older Dutch study had found that puberty blockers improved well-being, results that inspired clinics around the world to regularly prescribe the medications as part of what is now called gender-affirming care.

But the American trial did not find a similar trend, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in a wide-ranging interview. Puberty blockers did not lead to mental health improvements, she said, most likely because the children were already doing well when the study began.

“They’re in really good shape when they come in, and they’re in really good shape after two years,” said Dr. Olson-Kennedy, who runs the country’s largest youth gender clinic at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles.

That conclusion seemed to contradict an earlier description of the group, in which Dr. Olson-Kennedy and her colleagues noted that one quarter of the adolescents were depressed or suicidal before treatment.

In the nine years since the study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and as medical care for this small group of adolescents became a searing issue in American politics, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s team has not published the data. Asked why, she said the findings might fuel the kind of political attacks that have led to bans of the youth gender treatments in more than 20 states, one of which will soon be considered by the Supreme Court.

“I do not want our work to be weaponized,” she said. “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

She said that she intends to publish the data, but that the team had also been delayed because the N.I.H. had cut some of the project’s funding. She attributed that cut, too, to politics, which the N.I.H. denied. (The broader project has received $9.7 million in government support to date.)

Dr. Olson-Kennedy is one of the country’s most vocal advocates of adolescent gender treatments and has served as an expert witness in many legal challenges to the state bans. She said she was concerned the study’s results could be used in court to argue that “we shouldn’t use blockers because it doesn’t impact them,” referring to transgender adolescents.

Other researchers, however, were alarmed by the idea of delaying results that would have immediate implications for families around the world.

“I understand the fear about it being weaponized, but it’s really important to get the science out there,” said Amy Tishelman, a clinical and research psychologist at Boston College who was one of the study’s original researchers.

Dr. Tishelman also noted that, even if the drugs did not lead to psychological improvements, they may have prevented some of the children from getting worse. “No change isn’t necessarily a negative finding — there could be a preventative aspect to it,” she said. “We just don’t know without more investigation.”

In the 1990s and 2000s, doctors in the Netherlands began studying a small group of children who had experienced intense gender dysphoria since early childhood. For most of these children, the negative feelings dissipated by puberty. For others, puberty made them feel worse.

For those who struggled, the researchers began prescribing puberty blockers, which had long been used to treat children whose puberty began unusually early. The Dutch scientists reasoned that by preventing the permanent changes of puberty, transgender adolescents would fare better psychologically and fit in more comfortably in society as adults.

In 2011, the researchers reported on the first 70 children who were treated with the so-called Dutch Protocol. The children were thoroughly assessed to make sure that they had persistent dysphoria and supportive parents and that they did not have serious psychiatric conditions that might interfere with treatment.

These patients showed some psychological improvements after puberty blockers: fewer depressive symptoms, as well as significant declines in behavioral and emotional problems. All the patients chose to continue their gender transitions by taking testosterone or estrogen.

The findings were highly influential even before they were published, and clinics around the world opened to treat transgender adolescents with puberty blockers and hormones.

England’s youth gender clinic in 2011 tried to replicate the Dutch results with a study of 44 children. But at a conference five years later, the British researchers reported that puberty blockers had not changed volunteers’ well-being, including rates of self-harm. Those results were not made public until 2020, years after puberty blockers had become the standard treatment for children with gender dysphoria in England.

In 2020, Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s group described the initial psychological profile of the children enrolled in the U.S. study of puberty blockers, whose average age was 11. Before receiving the drugs, around one quarter of the group reported depression symptoms and significant anxiety, and one quarter reported ever having thoughts of suicide. Eight percent reported a past suicide attempt.

In a progress report submitted to the N.I.H. at that time, Dr. Olson-Kennedy outlined her hypothesis of how the children would fare after two years on puberty blockers: that they would show “decreased symptoms of depression, anxiety, trauma symptoms, self-injury, and suicidality, and increased body esteem and quality of life over time.”

That hypothesis does not seem to have borne out. “They have good mental health on average,” Dr. Olson-Kennedy said in the interview with The New York Times. “They’re not in any concerning ranges, either at the beginning or after two years.” She reiterated this idea several times.

When asked in follow-up emails to clarify how the children could have good initial mental health when her preliminary findings had showed one quarter of them struggling, Dr. Olson-Kennedy said that, in the interview, she was referring to data averages and that she was still analyzing the full data set.

Dr. Hilary Cass, a pediatrician who this year published an extensive review of youth gender services in England, said that the delays from the American and British research groups had led the public to believe that puberty blockers improved mental health, even though scant evidence backed up that conclusion.

“It’s really important we get results out there so we understand whether it’s helpful or not, and for whom,” Dr. Cass said.

Her report found weak evidence for puberty blockers and noted some risks, including lags in bone growth and fertility loss in some patients. It prompted the National Health Service in England to stop prescribing the drugs outside of a new clinical trial , following similar pullbacks in several other European countries .

An N.I.H. spokesman said that while the agency generally encourages the publication of data supported by its grants, researchers decide how and when to do so.

Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s collaborators have also not yet published data they collected on how puberty blockers affected the adolescents’ bone development .

But many other papers have been published from the wider N.I.H. project, including a 2023 study of older transgender and nonbinary adolescents who took estrogen or testosterone to aid their gender transition. After two years on hormones, the volunteers showed improvements in life and body satisfaction, and patients taking testosterone showed declines in depression and anxiety. (Two of the 315 patients died by suicide, a rate much higher than the general population.)

Dr. Olson-Kennedy noted that doctors’ clinical experience was often undervalued in discussions of research. She has prescribed puberty blockers and hormonal treatments to transgender children and adolescents for 17 years, she said, and has observed how profoundly beneficial they can be.

Although the N.I.H. studies are large, she said, “these are minuscule compared to the amount of people that we’ve taken care of.”

Christina Jewett and Jane Ackermann contributed reporting.

Azeen Ghorayshi covers the intersection of sex, gender and science for The Times. More about Azeen Ghorayshi

Discover More in Health and Science

A Psychiatric Rescue Mission:  In Los Angeles, the crisis of homelessness is pushing American psychiatry to places it has not gone before — like sidewalk injections of antipsychotics .

 Concrete, the Ancient Roman Way:  By learning the secrets of 2,000-year-old cement, researchers are trying to devise greener, more durable modern options .

Hearing Aids in Your Pocket:  With the help of new software authorized by the F.D.A., Apple is preparing to turn its AirPods Pro 2 into easy-to-use aids  for people with mild to moderate hearing loss.

Birds’ Mysterious Migration:  Some birds migrate thousands of miles every autumn. Scientists are using a hypobaric wind tunnel  to find out how they manage these long-haul journeys.

When Two Sea Aliens Become One:  Researchers have found that comb jellies, the primitive animals that are some of the strangest creatures on earth, can fuse their bodies together .

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.

The unauthorized immigrant population in the United States grew to 11.0 million in 2022, according to new Pew Research Center estimates based on the 2022 American Community Survey, the most recent year available. The increase from 10.5 million in 2021 reversed a long-term downward trend from 2007 to 2019. This is the first sustained increase in the unauthorized immigrant population since the period from 2005 to 2007.

However, the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 2022 was still below the peak of 12.2 million in 2007.

Pew Research Center conducted this research to understand changes in the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States. The Center has published estimates of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population for more than two decades. The estimates presented in this research for 2022 are the Center’s latest.

Center estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population use a “residual method.” It is similar to methods used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics and nongovernmental organizations, including the Center for Migration Studies and the Migration Policy Institute . Those organizations’ estimates are generally consistent with ours. Our estimates also align with official U.S. data sources, including birth records, school enrollment figures and tax data, as well as Mexican censuses and surveys.

Our residual method includes these steps:

• Estimate the total number of immigrants living in the country in a particular year using data from U.S. censuses and government surveys such as the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey.
• Estimate the number of immigrants living in the U.S. legally using official counts of immigrant and refugee admissions together with other demographic data (for example, death and out-migration rates).
• Subtract our estimate of lawful immigrants from our estimate of the total immigrant population. This provides an initial estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population.

Our final estimate of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population, as well as estimates for lawful immigrants, includes an upward adjustment. We do this because censuses and surveys tend to miss some people . Undercounts for immigrants, especially unauthorized immigrants, tend to be higher than for other groups. (Our 1990 estimate comes from work by Robert Warren and John Robert Warren .)

The term “unauthorized immigrant” reflects many academic researchers’ and policy analysts’ standard and customary usage. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics also generally uses it. The term means the same thing as “undocumented immigrants,” “illegal immigrants” and “illegal aliens.”

For more details on how we produced our estimates, read the Methodology section of our November 2018 report on unauthorized immigrants.

The unauthorized immigrant population includes any immigrants not in the following groups:

• Immigrants admitted for lawful residence (i.e., green card admissions)
• People admitted formally as refugees
• People granted asylum
• Former unauthorized immigrants granted legal residence under the 1985 Immigration Reform and Control Act
• Immigrants admitted in categories 1-4 who have become naturalized U.S. citizens
• Individuals admitted as lawful temporary residents under specific visa categories, such as those for foreign students, guest workers and intracompany transfers.

Read the Methodology section of our November 2018 report on unauthorized immigrants for more details.

Pew Research Center’s estimate of unauthorized immigrants as of July 2022 includes more than 3 million immigrants who have temporary protection from deportation and permission to be in the United States. Some also have permission to work in the country. These immigrants account for almost 30% of our national estimate of 11.0 million unauthorized immigrants for 2022.

Although these immigrants have permission to be in the country, they could be subject to deportation if government policy changes. Other organizations and the federal government also include these immigrants in their estimates of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population.

Unauthorized immigrants can receive temporary permission to be in the U.S. through the following:

Asylum applicants

Individuals who have applied for asylum and are awaiting a ruling are not legal residents but cannot be deported. There are two types of asylum claims, defensive and affirmative .

Defensive asylum applications are generally filed by individuals facing deportation or removal from the U.S. These are processed by the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). As of July 2022, there were about 915,000 individuals with applications pending.

Affirmative asylum claims are made by people who are not in the process of being deported or removed. These claims are handled by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). In mid-2022, about 720,000 individuals were awaiting decisions on more than 500,000 applications for affirmative asylum.

Temporary Protected Status (TPS)

As of July 2022, there were about 650,000 unauthorized immigrants with Temporary Protected Status . This status provides protection from removal or deportation to individuals who cannot safely return to their country because of civil unrest, violence or natural disaster.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) offers protection from deportation to individuals who were brought to the U.S. as children before 2007. In July 2022, there were about 595,000 active DACA beneficiaries , largely immigrants from Mexico.

Applicants for other visas

Many immigrants in the U.S. apply for visas to gain lawful immigrant status. In some cases, individuals awaiting decisions on these applications can remain in the country.

T and U visas are for victims of trafficking and certain criminal activities, including domestic violence, sexual assault, hate crimes and involuntary servitude. In mid-2022, the backlog for these visas reached 300,000. The individuals in this backlog are considered part of the unauthorized immigrant population.

These new estimates do not reflect events since mid-2022. The U.S. unauthorized immigrant population has likely grown over the past two years, based on several alternative data sources. For example, encounters with migrants at U.S. borders reached record levels throughout 2022-23 , and the number of applicants waiting for decisions on asylum claims increased by about 1 million by the end of 2023.

In addition, through December 2023, about 500,000 new immigrants were paroled into the country through two federal programs – the Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan ( CHNV ) program and Uniting for Ukraine ( U4U ). Groups like these have traditionally been considered part of the unauthorized immigrant population, but almost none of them appear in the 2022 estimates.

While these new arrivals probably increased the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population, it remains to be seen how much. New arrivals can’t simply be added to the existing estimate because some unauthorized immigrants leave the country every year, some die and some gain lawful status. (For details, read “What has happened with unauthorized migration since July 2022?”)

The Pew Research Center estimates presented here use the 2022 American Community Survey (ACS). The 2022 ACS provides data for July 1, 2022. We cannot make estimates for 2023 or later until new ACS data is released.

About 1.5 million immigrants have received protection from deportation since 2022, according to a Pew Research Center review of federal immigration data. However, it is not appropriate to derive a new estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population by adding these 1.5 million immigrants to the estimate of 11.0 unauthorized immigrants in 2022. This would be inaccurate because the unauthorized immigrant population changes for many reasons, including outmigration from the U.S., deaths and transitions to lawful immigration statuses.

In addition, this approach would double-count some immigrants because an individual can be included in multiple immigration programs. The exact number of people who are double-counted is unknown.

Here are the main groups of unauthorized immigrants with protection from deportation and how the numbers have changed in the past two years:

Asylum applicants. Immigrants who have applied for asylum but whose cases have not been resolved are included in our estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population because they have not been admitted as permanent residents. The number with pending cases has grown substantially since July 2022. Most immigrants in these backlogs are in the United States.

The backlog of affirmative asylum cases (i.e., cases adjudicated by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) increased from about 500,000 as of June 30, 2022, to more than 1.1 million at the end of 2023. Since each case can include more than one person, we estimate that these additional cases added 870,000 immigrants to the backlog at the end of 2023. Most of these people are new arrivals to the U.S.

During this period, the backlog for defensive asylum (i.e., cases adjudicated by the Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review ) grew by about 120,000 people, from about 900,000 to 1 million people.

CHNV parolees. A new program allows people living in Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to apply to enter the U.S. as parolees . Since these migrants are not admitted for permanent U.S. residence, they would be included in our estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population under current definitions.

The program began full operation in January 2023. By the end of 2023, about 320,000 new immigrants had entered the country under CHNV parole.

Uniting for Ukraine (U4U) . Created in April 2022, this program allows Ukrainian citizens and their families to live in the U.S. on a temporary basis under certain conditions. More than 170,000 Ukrainians had been admitted on a two-year parole as of December 2023.

Because these immigrants do not have permanent residence, they would be considered unauthorized immigrants based on current definitions. Virtually all U4U parolees came to the U.S. after July 2022 and are not part of the 2022 unauthorized immigrant population estimate.

Victims of human trafficking and other crimes. T and U visas are available for victims of certain crimes who assist law enforcement in pursuing the criminals. The backlogs for these visas increased by about 50,000 people since July 2022 .

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) . TPS allows migrants to live and work in the U.S.and avoid deportation because their home countries are unsafe due to war, natural disasters or other crises. Some people with TPS have been in the U.S. for more than 20 years.

The population of immigrants eligible for or receiving TPS recently increased to about 1.2 million. Most of these people were already in the country as of July 2022, so they do not contribute to growth in the unauthorized immigrant population. Further, many newer additions to the TPS population are counted in other groups.

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). DACA allows unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the U.S. before their 16th birthday and who were in the U.S. on June 15, 2012, to live and work in the country. Initially, about 700,000 individuals received benefits under DACA.

Since then, the number of DACA recipients has dropped steadily as some have acquired permanent status and others have left the country or otherwise not renewed their status. At the end of 2023, about 530,000 people had DACA status. These individuals are in our unauthorized immigrant population estimates for 2022.

In addition to these groups with protection from deportation, there are other indicators of overall growth:

Encounters at U.S. borders. U.S. immigration authorities encounter a large and growing number of migrants at the border. While many migrants are detained and denied entry into the U.S., some are allowed to remain in the U.S. temporarily. Most who are allowed to stay are included in other groups and do not represent additional unauthorized immigrants.

Immigrants in the Current Population Survey (CPS) . This government survey provides data on the total U.S. population as well as immigrants, both from the monthly CPS and the Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) every March. CPS data on the immigrant population shows substantial growth since 2022, beyond what can be accounted for by lawful immigration.

Here are key findings about how the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population changed recently:

• The number of unauthorized immigrants from Mexico dropped to 4.0 million in 2022 from a peak of 6.9 million in 2007. Mexico has long been , and remains, the most common country of birth for unauthorized immigrants.
• From 2019 to 2022, the unauthorized immigrant population from nearly every region of the world grew. The Caribbean, South America, Asia, Europe and sub-Saharan Africa all saw increases.
• The unauthorized immigrant population grew in six states from 2019 to 2022 – Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas. Only California saw a decrease.
• About 8.3 million U.S. workers in 2022 were unauthorized immigrants, an increase from 7.4 million in 2019. The 2022 number is essentially the same as previous highs in 2008 and 2011.

Composition of the U.S. immigrant population

Immigrants made up 14.3% of the nation’s population in 2022. That share was slightly higher than in the previous five years but below the record high of 14.8% in 1890.

As of 2022, unauthorized immigrants represented 3.3% of the total U.S. population and 23% of the foreign-born population. These shares were lower than the peak values in 2007 but slightly higher than in 2019.

Meanwhile, the lawful immigrant population grew steadily from 24.1 million in 2000 to 36.9 million in 2022. The growth was driven by a rapid increase in the number of naturalized citizens, from 10.7 million to 23.4 million. The number of lawful permanent residents dropped slightly, from 11.9 million to 11.5 million. As a result, in 2022, 49% of all immigrants in the country were naturalized U.S. citizens.

Who lives with unauthorized immigrants?

Unauthorized immigrants live in 6.3 million households that include more than 22 million people. These households represent 4.8% of the 130 million U.S. households.

Here are some facts about these households in 2022:

• In 86% of these households, either the householder or their spouse is an unauthorized immigrant.
• Almost 70% of these households are considered “mixed status,” meaning that they also contain lawful immigrants or U.S.-born residents.
• In only about 5% of these households, the unauthorized immigrants are not related to the householder or spouse. In these cases, they are probably employees or roommates.

Of the 22 million people in households with an unauthorized immigrant, 11 million are U.S. born or lawful immigrants. They include:

• 1.3 million U.S.-born adults who are children of unauthorized immigrants. (We cannot estimate the total number of U.S.-born adult children of unauthorized immigrants because available data sources only identify those who still live with their unauthorized immigrant parents.)
• 1.4 million other U.S.-born adults and 3.0 million lawful immigrant adults.

About 4.4 million U.S.-born children under 18 live with an unauthorized immigrant parent. They account for about 84% of all minor children living with their unauthorized immigrant parent. Altogether, about 850,000 children under 18 are unauthorized immigrants in 2022.

The share of households that include an unauthorized immigrant varies across states. In Maine, Mississippi, Montana and West Virginia, fewer than 1% of households include an unauthorized immigrant. Nevada (9%) has the highest share, followed by California, New Jersey and Texas (8% each).

What countries do unauthorized immigrants come from?

The origin countries for unauthorized immigrants have changed since the population peaked in 2007. Here are some highlights of those changes:

The 4.0 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S. in 2022 was the lowest number since the 1990s. And in 2022, Mexico accounted for 37% of the nation’s unauthorized immigrants, by far the smallest share on record .

The decrease in unauthorized immigrants from Mexico reflects several factors:

• A broader decline in migration from Mexico to the U.S.;
• Some Mexican immigrants returning to Mexico; and
• Expanded opportunities for lawful immigration from Mexico and other countries, especially for temporary agricultural workers.

The rest of the world

The total number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. from countries other than Mexico grew rapidly between 2019 and 2022, from 5.8 million to 6.9 million.

The number of unauthorized immigrants from almost every world region increased. The largest increases were from the Caribbean (300,000) and Europe and Canada (275,000). One exception was Central America, which had led in growth until 2019 but saw no change after that.

After Mexico, the countries with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations in the U.S. in 2022 were:

• El Salvador (750,000)
• India (725,000)
• Guatemala (675,000)
• Honduras (525,000)

The Northern Triangle

Three Central American countries – El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala – together represented 1.9 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2022, or about 18% of the total. The unauthorized immigrant population from the Northern Triangle grew by about 50% between 2007 and 2019 but did not increase significantly after that.

Other origin countries

In 2022, Venezuela was the country of birth for 270,000 U.S. unauthorized immigrants. This population had seen particularly fast growth, from 55,000 in 2007 to 130,000 in 2017. It is poised to grow significantly in the future as new methods of entry to the U.S. are now available to Venezuelans.

Other countries with large numbers of unauthorized immigrants have also seen increases in recent years. Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Ecuador, India, and countries making up the former Soviet Union all experienced growth from 2019 to 2022.

However, other countries with significant unauthorized immigrant populations showed no change, notably China, the Dominican Republic and the Philippines.

Detailed table:   Unauthorized immigrant population by region and selected country of birth (and margins of error), 1990-2022  (Excel)

Which states do unauthorized immigrants call home?

Most U.S. states’ unauthorized immigrant populations stayed steady from 2019 to 2022. However, six states showed significant growth:

• Florida (+400,000)
• Texas (+85,000)
• New York (+70,000)
• New Jersey (+55,000)
• Massachusetts (+50,000)
• Maryland (+40,000)

California (-120,000) is the only state whose unauthorized immigrant population decreased.

States with the most unauthorized immigrants

The six states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations in 2022 were:

• California (1.8 million)
• Texas (1.6 million)
• Florida (1.2 million)
• New York (650,000)
• New Jersey (475,000)
• Illinois (400,000)

These states have consistently had the most unauthorized immigrants since at least 1980. However, in 2007, California had 1.2 million more unauthorized immigrants than Texas. Today, with the declining number in California, it has only about 150,000 more. The unauthorized immigrant population has also become considerably less geographically concentrated over time. In 2022, the top six states were home to 56% of the nation’s unauthorized immigrants, down from 80% in 1990.

Detailed table:   Unauthorized immigrant population for states (and margins of error), 1990-2022  (Excel)

Detailed table:   Unauthorized immigrants and characteristics for states, 2022  (Excel)

Unauthorized immigrants in the labor force

The number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. workforce grew from 7.4 million in 2019 to 8.3 million in 2022. The 2022 number equals previous highs in 2008 and 2011.

Unauthorized immigrants represent about 4.8% of the U.S. workforce in 2022. This was below the peak of 5.4% in 2007.

Since 2003, unauthorized immigrants have made up 4.4% to 5.4% of all U.S. workers, a relatively narrow range.

The share of the U.S. workforce made up by unauthorized immigrants is higher than their 3.3% share of the total U.S. population. That’s because the unauthorized immigrant population includes relatively few children or elderly adults, groups that tend not to be in the labor force.

Detailed table:   Unauthorized immigrants in the labor force for states, 2022  (Excel)

The share of unauthorized immigrants in the workforce varied across states in 2022. Nevada (9%), Texas (8%), Florida (8%), New Jersey (7%), California (7%) and Maryland (7%) had the highest shares, while fewer than 1% of workers in Maine, Montana, Vermont and West Virginia were unauthorized immigrants.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Nov. 16, 2023.

• Immigrant Populations
• Immigration Issues
• Unauthorized Immigration

Jeffrey S. Passel is a senior demographer at Pew Research Center .

Jens Manuel Krogstad is a senior writer and editor at Pew Research Center .

Migrant encounters at U.S.-Mexico border have fallen sharply in 2024

What the data says about immigrants in the u.s., trump and harris supporters differ on mass deportations but favor border security, high-skilled immigration, in tight u.s. presidential race, latino voters’ preferences mirror 2020, how mexicans and americans view each other and their governments’ handling of the border, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

© 2024 Pew Research Center