interview techniques pitfalls in research

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples

Published on March 10, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

An interview is a qualitative research method that relies on asking questions in order to collect data . Interviews involve two or more people, one of whom is the interviewer asking the questions.

There are several types of interviews, often differentiated by their level of structure.

• Structured interviews have predetermined questions asked in a predetermined order.
• Unstructured interviews are more free-flowing.
• Semi-structured interviews fall in between.

Interviews are commonly used in market research, social science, and ethnographic research .

Table of contents

What is a structured interview, what is a semi-structured interview, what is an unstructured interview, what is a focus group, examples of interview questions, advantages and disadvantages of interviews, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about types of interviews.

Structured interviews have predetermined questions in a set order. They are often closed-ended, featuring dichotomous (yes/no) or multiple-choice questions. While open-ended structured interviews exist, they are much less common. The types of questions asked make structured interviews a predominantly quantitative tool.

Asking set questions in a set order can help you see patterns among responses, and it allows you to easily compare responses between participants while keeping other factors constant. This can mitigate   research biases and lead to higher reliability and validity. However, structured interviews can be overly formal, as well as limited in scope and flexibility.

• You feel very comfortable with your topic. This will help you formulate your questions most effectively.
• You have limited time or resources. Structured interviews are a bit more straightforward to analyze because of their closed-ended nature, and can be a doable undertaking for an individual.
• Your research question depends on holding environmental conditions between participants constant.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Semi-structured interviews are a blend of structured and unstructured interviews. While the interviewer has a general plan for what they want to ask, the questions do not have to follow a particular phrasing or order.

Semi-structured interviews are often open-ended, allowing for flexibility, but follow a predetermined thematic framework, giving a sense of order. For this reason, they are often considered “the best of both worlds.”

However, if the questions differ substantially between participants, it can be challenging to look for patterns, lessening the generalizability and validity of your results.

• You have prior interview experience. It’s easier than you think to accidentally ask a leading question when coming up with questions on the fly. Overall, spontaneous questions are much more difficult than they may seem.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. The answers you receive can help guide your future research.

An unstructured interview is the most flexible type of interview. The questions and the order in which they are asked are not set. Instead, the interview can proceed more spontaneously, based on the participant’s previous answers.

Unstructured interviews are by definition open-ended. This flexibility can help you gather detailed information on your topic, while still allowing you to observe patterns between participants.

However, so much flexibility means that they can be very challenging to conduct properly. You must be very careful not to ask leading questions, as biased responses can lead to lower reliability or even invalidate your research.

• You have a solid background in your research topic and have conducted interviews before.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking descriptive data that will deepen and contextualize your initial hypotheses.
• Your research necessitates forming a deeper connection with your participants, encouraging them to feel comfortable revealing their true opinions and emotions.

A focus group brings together a group of participants to answer questions on a topic of interest in a moderated setting. Focus groups are qualitative in nature and often study the group’s dynamic and body language in addition to their answers. Responses can guide future research on consumer products and services, human behavior, or controversial topics.

Focus groups can provide more nuanced and unfiltered feedback than individual interviews and are easier to organize than experiments or large surveys . However, their small size leads to low external validity and the temptation as a researcher to “cherry-pick” responses that fit your hypotheses.

• Your research focuses on the dynamics of group discussion or real-time responses to your topic.
• Your questions are complex and rooted in feelings, opinions, and perceptions that cannot be answered with a “yes” or “no.”
• Your topic is exploratory in nature, and you are seeking information that will help you uncover new questions or future research ideas.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Depending on the type of interview you are conducting, your questions will differ in style, phrasing, and intention. Structured interview questions are set and precise, while the other types of interviews allow for more open-endedness and flexibility.

Here are some examples.

• Semi-structured
• Unstructured
• Focus group
• Do you like dogs? Yes/No
• Do you associate dogs with feeling: happy; somewhat happy; neutral; somewhat unhappy; unhappy
• If yes, name one attribute of dogs that you like.
• If no, name one attribute of dogs that you don’t like.
• What feelings do dogs bring out in you?
• When you think more deeply about this, what experiences would you say your feelings are rooted in?

Interviews are a great research tool. They allow you to gather rich information and draw more detailed conclusions than other research methods, taking into consideration nonverbal cues, off-the-cuff reactions, and emotional responses.

However, they can also be time-consuming and deceptively challenging to conduct properly. Smaller sample sizes can cause their validity and reliability to suffer, and there is an inherent risk of interviewer effect arising from accidentally leading questions.

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of each type of interview that can help you decide if you’d like to utilize this research method.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Student’s  t -distribution
• Normal distribution
• Null and Alternative Hypotheses
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Data cleansing
• Reproducibility vs Replicability
• Peer review
• Prospective cohort study

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Placebo effect
• Hawthorne effect
• Hindsight bias
• Affect heuristic
• Social desirability bias

The four most common types of interviews are:

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order. 
• Semi-structured interviews : A few questions are predetermined, but other questions aren’t planned.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

The interviewer effect is a type of bias that emerges when a characteristic of an interviewer (race, age, gender identity, etc.) influences the responses given by the interviewee.

There is a risk of an interviewer effect in all types of interviews , but it can be mitigated by writing really high-quality interview questions.

Social desirability bias is the tendency for interview participants to give responses that will be viewed favorably by the interviewer or other participants. It occurs in all types of interviews and surveys , but is most common in semi-structured interviews , unstructured interviews , and focus groups .

Social desirability bias can be mitigated by ensuring participants feel at ease and comfortable sharing their views. Make sure to pay attention to your own body language and any physical or verbal cues, such as nodding or widening your eyes.

This type of bias can also occur in observations if the participants know they’re being observed. They might alter their behavior accordingly.

A focus group is a research method that brings together a small group of people to answer questions in a moderated setting. The group is chosen due to predefined demographic traits, and the questions are designed to shed light on a topic of interest. It is one of 4 types of interviews .

Quantitative research deals with numbers and statistics, while qualitative research deals with words and meanings.

Quantitative methods allow you to systematically measure variables and test hypotheses . Qualitative methods allow you to explore concepts and experiences in more detail.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

George, T. (2023, June 22). Types of Interviews in Research | Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved September 3, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/interviews-research/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, semi-structured interview | definition, guide & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

6 Common Mistakes to Avoid During Qualitative Interviews

Even the most experienced interviewers fall victim to interrupting a participant or asking a leading question. Taking note of when these occur and actively working to avoid them can put participants at ease and encourage unbiased insights.

One might think that one-on-one interviews are an easy method to master. Ideally, you are having a conversation with a person who has used your product/service (or sometimes someone who hasn't). This concept can seem simple—as you’re just talking to another person.

However, there are a lot of rules and best practices to juggle while you have this conversation. You need to make sure not to:

• Ask yes/no questions
• Lead the participant
• Create an environment for social desirability bias
• Be too obvious during usability tasks
• Use positive words
• Get distracted
• Forget any necessary questions

The above is only part of what you must keep in mind during interviews.

After many years of interviewing and assessing others, I have found sneaky ways to mess up interviews, even if you feel like a seasoned interviewer. Thankfully, we can put safeguards into place that help us avoid (and recover from) these mistakes.

Here are some of the most common issues I see from experience interviews and how to fix them:

1. Diving right in

Building rapport during sessions is complex, especially if you are remote. But we all know, making a participant feel comfortable tends to lead to a better interview and richer data.

I used to dive right into the topic after doing a quick introduction to myself. My first questions would be about that person's role or something related to the subject. I wouldn't give participants a chance to warm up and get into the mindset of opening up to me.

It can be challenging for people to feel relaxed during an interview session, so a warm-up at the beginning of the interview can help. Rather than diving into the subject and discussion, take a few minutes to get to know the person and get them familiar with the types of questions you will ask them and answers you expect.

For example, I like to start with:

• What are some new hobbies you've started recently?
• What do you like to do in your free time?
• Is there anything you've enjoyed watching recently on Netflix?

2. Interruptions

Whenever I assess interviews of students, I immediately notice and flag interruptions. As I mentioned, getting participants to speak freely is difficult, and interruptions can ruin the sense of rapport you have built.

Not interrupting can be particularly tricky when you are remote and dealing with a slow connection. Whenever you interrupt a participant, you are telling them that what they are saying is not as important as something you might have to say. Even if they don't seem to care, this can cause them to stop elaborating on their points.

The participant should always be talking more than the moderator. My rule of thumb is that the transcript should be 80% participant and 20% moderator, and for that 20%, it’s mainly questions.

To achieve this, I count up to three in my head every time a participant finishes speaking. These three seconds give them time to decide if they want to continue and ensures they have entirely made their point. Silence is your best friend!

3. Positive acknowledgments

After a participant makes a point, you generally acknowledge that you have been or are listening. These acknowledgments are critical for indicating active listening and make the participant feel heard. However, as much as possible, they should be neutral. I am so guilty of this and do it all the time.

For example:

Participant: I started looking for a mattress randomly one night. I think it is because my husband and I kept complaining that we were tired and not sleeping well. We couldn't figure out what it was. And then, suddenly, I was like, maybe I'll look for another mattress. Maybe that is it!

Me: Mmmhmm (YES!)

Participant: And so I went ahead on Amazon, which I didn't actually expect to work. But they had a bunch of mattresses. So I went onto Amazon because they have actual reviews from people instead of direct websites where they always seem to say every bed they are selling has five stars!

Me: Great! (NO!)

Whenever we are responding to participants, the language should be as neutral as possible. Instead of "yes," "good," "great," or "perfect," we can use words like "okay" and "mmhmm" to indicate our attention.

4. Sneaky leading questions

The sneaky leading question is similar to positive acknowledgments in the sense that we might not even notice we are using non-neutral language. A common mistake I see is using language that goes toward either the positive or negative.

For example, I often hear:

Participant: We ended up finding a few mattresses on Amazon, which was great, but then I realized I wanted to try them out. So I ended up looking up the direct seller of the beds to try them out, which was time-consuming.

Moderator: How difficult was that for you?

Framed this way, we are assuming that the participant found the task difficult. The only indicator they gave us was time-consuming. Instead of asking about a level of difficulty, we can neutralize the question by asking, "How was that experience for you?" or "How was it looking up the direct sellers?"

Another common sneaky leading question I see is along these lines:

Moderator: Let's switch over to talking more about budgeting when it comes to groceries and restaurants. How important is it for you to keep a budget for these things?

This type of question can invite a sense of social desirability bias, which causes participants to respond in a way that makes them look good to the moderator. As humans, we want others to see us in a good light and, even if we don't care about a budget, we might want to seem more fiscally responsible, causing us to answer untruthfully. Similar to before, keep your language as neutral as possible.

5. Awkward transitions

I get asked a lot about how to properly transition between topics during an interview, especially if the participant is rather long-winded. Sometimes trying to switch to a new topic or guide a participant back can result in awkward interruptions and abrupt questions. It can be challenging to navigate the person smoothly on to the next subject or back on track.

Here are a few transition phrases I use:

• "Thank you for sharing. If we have time later, let's come back to that."
• "Since we have a limited time, I'd like to get back to X first and then talk about Y."
• "Thank you for sharing that! Before we talk more about that, can we go back to X topic first?"
• "Thank you for sharing. I'd like to move on to the next topic on..."
• "The next set of questions will focus on..."
• "I'd like to transition to the next topic on..."

6. Trying to relate

When a person is talking, one of our first instincts is to try to relate to them and find common threads, to make us feel more connected. I have experienced this a lot myself, especially when participants are talking about something difficult.

In the past, I’ve used phrases like, "I can imagine..." or "I can't imagine..." or briefly brought up a similar experience I've had. It's okay to do this sometimes but best to keep it to a minimum.

I stay away from those phrases because they can end up belittling the participant's experience. Even if the intent is to empathize and connect, the participant may not take it in that way.

For example, I remember interviewing participants about travel, and the most recent experience a participant had was traveling to a close relative's funeral. I scrambled, not ready for such a response, and tried to relate to the participant, shutting the person down completely. Instead, I give a neutral acknowledgement or express empathy through an "I'm sorry you went through that."

Wrapping it up: Improve your interviews with self assessments

When I set about trying to improve my qualitative interviews, I didn't know where to start. I knew I used too many positive acknowledgments, but I didn't know the scale or what else I could focus on.

With this in mind, I created a tool to assess my interviews based on Steinar Kvale's criteria of a good interviewer . After each interview I conduct, I listen to the entire session and use this template to evaluate myself.

The template includes the 10 principles I use to measure and assess my research interviews and touches upon the points above. Once I listen to my last three interviews, I pick two points to work on in the upcoming interviews.

For example, if I notice I am using positive acknowledgments and sneaky leading questions too often, I will improve those areas in future sessions. Once I feel more comfortable, I will move on to other areas of improvement.

Bonus points if you can get colleagues or your manager to evaluate your interviews as well! At one organization, I set up a bi-weekly meeting where all of the researchers listened to and assessed each other's interviews. It was a fantastic learning experience for everyone.

You may also like...

• 17 Pro Tips to Perfect One-on-One Interviews
• Dig Deeper on 1-1 Interviews with Insightful Follow-Up Questions
• Elevate Your Moderated Research with an Interview Guide

Nikki Anderson-Stanier is the founder of User Research Academy and a qualitative researcher with 9 years in the field. She loves solving human problems and petting all the dogs. 

To get even more UXR nuggets, check out her user research membership ,  follow her on LinkedIn , or subscribe to her Substack .

Subscribe To People Nerds

A weekly roundup of interviews, pro tips and original research designed for people who are interested in people

How to Keep Your Research's Momentum Going After the Readout

Amplify your insight impact with double loop learning, the future of uxr: redefining the role of uxr advocacy [q&a].

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Eight challenges for interview researchers

The open-ended interview is the preeminent data generation technique in methodological traditions as disparate as ethnography, phenomenology (in its different forms), psychoanalysis, narrative psychology, grounded theory, and (much) discourse analysis. Our aim in this chapter is to make the case that interviewing has been too easy, too obvious, too little studied, and too open to providing a convenient launch pad for poor research. We will argue that interview research will be made better if it faces up to a series of eight challenges that arise in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of qualitative interviews. Some research studies already face up to some of these challenges; few studies face up to all of them. We will make our case strongly and bluntly with the aim of provoking debate where not enough has taken place. These challenges are overlapping, but we have separated them in the way we have for clarity. It is important to emphasize that our aim is not to criticize interviews but to make them better.

Related Papers

Jonathan Potter

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Fabienne Portier-Le Cocq

We introduce four papers comprising a Themed Section for this issue of the International Journal of Social Research Methodology, which together 'Make the Case for Qualitative Interviews'. Here our aim is to show how this collection provides a timely contribution to key debates concerning the value of qualitative interviews, particularly as these are employed and analysed in much recent social scientific thinking. We explore ways to move beyond recent, sometimes constraining and occasionally dismissive, approaches to interviews in the social sciences through reframing and reconfiguring central questions germane to these debates. We also seek to challenge a broader neo-liberal trend towards valuing quantitative over depth qualitative research. Through this Introduction, and the collection of papers that follows, we seek to re-establish the value of qualitative interviews by shifting the focus from a preoccupation with what interviews can be said to do, towards questions centri...

Svend Brinkmann

Rosalind Edwards , Janet Holland

In this article, we consider challenges for the existence and practice of qualitative research interviews. We review key features of qualitative interviewing, in particular the debate over the radical critique of interviewing and the nature of the data it generates, to set the scene for our arguments about the current standing and future prognosis for the method of generating data and the technologies that enable this. We look at qualitative interviewing in the context of the political project of neoliberalism and the regime of austerity associated with it, and the linked turn to what is known as ‘big data’, a feature of digital technological developments in garnering data. Qualitative researchers using interview methods have been creative in working with and resisting features of neoliberal austerity pragmatically and politically, and we provide some examples. We also consider an epistemological challenge and resistance from outside of the dominant framework – interviewing in indigenous methodologies. We argue that it is the relationship between the interview as a method of data generation for research and the ways of knowing about the world, that is the epistemology that the interview-based research proceeds from, that is crucial in considering the potentials for the method’s practice.

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

Stephen Mago

Shannon Oltmann

Interviews are a staple method used in qualitative research. Many authors hold face-to-face interviews to be the gold standard, or the assumed best mode in which to conduct interviews. However, a large number of research projects are based on conducting interviews via telephone. While some scholars have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of using telephones to conduct interviews, this work is scattered across multiple disciplines and lacks a cohesive, comprehensive framework. The current article seeks to rectify this gap in the literature, by explicitly developing the constructs of the interviewer context and the respondent context. By examining key components in each of these contexts, the qualitative interviewer can make an informed, reflective decision about the best interview mode to use for a particular project.

Chief Editor

Maria Fortes

Baczoni Levente

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Jonathan Potter , Alexa Hepburn

Qualitative Research

Jennifer Wolgemuth

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: …

Tom Wengraf

Garima Kumar

Environment and Urbanization

Harrie Mazeland

Devorah Kalekin

nursing-informatics.com

Neill Ustick

KEIKO IKEDA

Human Resource Development Quarterly

Maria Plakhotnik

Community Practitioner

Tonette Rocco

Mwenza Blell

(Part V: Chapter 2). In Cooper, H., Camic, P.M. , Long, D.L., Panter, A.T., Rindskopf, D., Sher, K.J. (Eds.), American Psychological Association Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology (Vols 1-3). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Anna Madill

Munyaradzi Madziwa

Language in Society

Sabina Perrino , Anna De Fina

Gabriella Fazzi

Psychotherapy Research

Alan Burkard

Glen Lekgau

Deborah van den Hoonaard

Kelly M Tucker

Psychological Thought

Stanislava Stoyanova

Academia Letters

Thanh Truong

luci paulson

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

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

9.3 Issues to consider for all interview types

Learning objectives.

• Identify the three main issues that interviewers should consider
• Describe how interviewers can address power imbalances
• Describe and define rapport
• Define the term probe

Qualitative researchers are attentive to the complexities that arise during the interview process. Interviews are intimate processes. Your participants will share with you how they view the world, how they understand themselves, and how they cope with events that happened to them. Conscientious researchers should keep in mind the following topics to ensure the authenticity and trust necessary for successful interviews.

Power differential

First and foremost, interviewers must be aware of and attentive to the power differential between themselves and interview participants. The interviewer sets the agenda and leads the conversation. Qualitative interviewers aim to allow participants to have some control over which or to what extent various topics are discussed, but at the end of the day, it is the researcher who is in charge of the interview and how the data are reported to the public. The participant loses the ability to shape the narrative after the interview is over because it is the researcher who tells the story to the world. As the researcher, you are also asking someone to reveal things about themselves they may not typically share with others. Researchers do not reciprocate by revealing much or anything about themselves. All these factors shape the power dynamics of an interview.

A number of excellent pieces have been written dealing with issues of power in research and data collection. Feminist researchers in particular paved the way in helping researchers think about and address issues of power in their work (Oakley, 1981). Suggestions for overcoming the power imbalance between researcher and respondent include having the researcher reveal some aspects of her own identity and story so that the interview is a more reciprocal experience rather than one-sided, allowing participants to view and edit interview transcripts before the researcher uses them for analysis, and giving participants an opportunity to read and comment  on analysis before the researcher shares it with others through publication or presentation (Reinharz, 1992; Hesse-Biber, Nagy, & Leavy, 2007).  On the other hand, some researchers suggest that sharing too much with interview participants can give the false impression there is no power differential, when in reality, researchers can analyze and present participants’ stories in whatever way they see fit (Stacey, 1988).

However you feel about sharing details about your background with an interview participant, another way to balance the power differential between yourself and your interview participants is to make the intent of your research very clear to the subjects. Share with them your rationale for conducting the research and the research question(s) that frame your work. Be sure that you also share with participants how the data you gather will be used and stored. Also, explain to participants how their confidentiality will be protected including who will have access to the data you gather from them and what procedures, such as using pseudonyms, you will take to protect their identities. Social workers also must disclose the reasons why confidentiality may be violated to prevent danger to self or others. Many of these details will be covered by your IRB’s informed consent procedures and requirements. However, even if they are not, as researchers we should be attentive to how informed consent can help balance the power differences between ourselves and those who participate in our research.

There are no easy answers when it comes to handling the power differential between the researcher and researched. Even social scientists do not agree on the best approach. Because qualitative research involves interpersonal interactions and building a relationship with research participants, power is a particularly important issue.

Location, location, location

One way to address the power between researcher and respondent is to conduct the interview in a location of the participant’s choosing, where they will feel most comfortable answering your questions. Interviews can take place in any number of locations—in respondents’ homes or offices, researchers’ homes or offices, coffee shops, restaurants, public parks, or hotel lobbies, to name just a few possibilities. Each location comes with its own set of benefits and its own challenges. Allowing the respondent to choose the location that is most convenient and most comfortable for them is important, but identifying a location where there will be few distractions is helpful. For example, some coffee shops and restaurants are so loud that recording the interview can be a challenge. Other locations may present different sorts of distractions. For example, if you conduct interviews with parents in their home, they may out of necessity spend more time attending to their children during an interview than responding to your questions (of course, depending on the topic of your research, the opportunity to observe such interactions could be invaluable). As an interviewer, you may want to suggest a few possible locations, and note the goal of avoiding distractions, when you ask your respondents to choose a location.

The extent to which a respondent has control over choosing a location must also be balanced by accessibility of the location to the interviewer, and by the safety and comfort level with the location. You may not feel comfortable conducting an interview in an area with posters for hate groups on the wall. Not only might you fear for your safety, you may be too distracted to conduct a good interview. While it is important to conduct interviews in a location that is comfortable for respondents, doing so should never come at the expense of your safety.

Researcher-Participant rapport

A unique feature of interviews is that they require some social interaction, which means that a relationship is formed between interviewer and interviewee. One essential element in building a productive relationship is respect. You should respect the person’s time and their story. Demonstrating respect will help interviewees feel comfortable sharing with you.

There are no big secrets or tricks for how to show respect for research participants. At its core, the interview interaction should not differ from any other social interaction in which you show gratitude for a person’s time and respect for a person’s humanity. It is crucial that you, as the interviewer, conduct the interview in a way that is culturally sensitive. In some cases, this might mean educating yourself about your study population and even receiving some training to help you learn to effectively communicate with your research participants. Do not judge your research participants; you are there to listen to them, and they have been kind enough to give you their time and attention. Even if you disagree strongly with what a participant shares in an interview, your job as the researcher is to gather the information being shared with you, not to make personal judgments about it.  Respect provides a solid foundation for rapport.

Rapport is the sense of connection you establish with a participant. Developing good rapport requires good listening. In fact, listening during an interview is an active, not a passive, practice. Active listening means that you, the researcher, participate with the respondent by showing you understand and follow whatever it is that they are telling you (Devault, 1990).  The questions you ask respondents should indicate you’ve actually heard what they’ve just said.

Active listening means you will probe the respondent for more information from time to time throughout the interview. A probe is a request for more information. Probes are used because qualitative interviewing techniques are designed to go with the flow and take whatever direction the respondent goes during the interview. It is worth your time to come up with helpful probes in advance of an interview. You certainly do not want to find yourself stumped or speechless after a respondent has just said something about which you’d like to hear more. This is another reason why practicing your interview in advance with people who are similar to those in your sample is a good idea.

The responsibilities that a social work clinician has to clients differ significantly from a researcher’s responsibilities.  Clinicians provide services whereas researchers do not. A research participant is not your client, and your goals for the interaction are different from those of a clinical relationship.

Key Takeaways

• Interviewers should take into consideration the power differential between themselves and their respondents.
• Feminist researchers paved the way for helping interviewers think about how to balance the power differential between themselves and interview participants.
• Attend to the location of an interview and the relationship that forms between the interviewer and interviewee.
• Interviewers should always be respectful of interview participants.
• Probe- a request for more information in qualitative research

Image attributions

punch fist by PublicDomainPictures CC-0

action collaborate by rawpixel CC-0

Foundations of Social Work Research Copyright © 2020 by Rebecca L. Mauldin is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Qualitative Research 101: Interviewing

5 Common Mistakes To Avoid When Undertaking Interviews

By: David Phair (PhD) and Kerryn Warren (PhD) | March 2022

Undertaking interviews is potentially the most important step in the qualitative research process. If you don’t collect useful, useable data in your interviews, you’ll struggle through the rest of your dissertation or thesis.  Having helped numerous students with their research over the years, we’ve noticed some common interviewing mistakes that first-time researchers make. In this post, we’ll discuss five costly interview-related mistakes and outline useful strategies to avoid making these.

Overview: 5 Interviewing Mistakes

• Not having a clear interview strategy /plan
• Not having good interview techniques /skills
• Not securing a suitable location and equipment
• Not having a basic risk management plan
• Not keeping your “ golden thread ” front of mind

1. Not having a clear interview strategy

The first common mistake that we’ll look at is that of starting the interviewing process without having first come up with a clear interview strategy or plan of action. While it’s natural to be keen to get started engaging with your interviewees, a lack of planning can result in a mess of data and inconsistency between interviews.

There are several design choices to decide on and plan for before you start interviewing anyone. Some of the most important questions you need to ask yourself before conducting interviews include:

• What are the guiding research aims and research questions of my study?
• Will I use a structured, semi-structured or unstructured interview approach?
• How will I record the interviews (audio or video)?
• Who will be interviewed and by whom ?
• What ethics and data law considerations do I need to adhere to?
• How will I analyze my data? 

Let’s take a quick look at some of these.

The core objective of the interviewing process is to generate useful data that will help you address your overall research aims. Therefore, your interviews need to be conducted in a way that directly links to your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. your “golden thread”). This means that you need to carefully consider the questions you’ll ask to ensure that they align with and feed into your golden thread. If any question doesn’t align with this, you may want to consider scrapping it.

Another important design choice is whether you’ll use an unstructured, semi-structured or structured interview approach . For semi-structured interviews, you will have a list of questions that you plan to ask and these questions will be open-ended in nature. You’ll also allow the discussion to digress from the core question set if something interesting comes up. This means that the type of information generated might differ a fair amount between interviews.

Contrasted to this, a structured approach to interviews is more rigid, where a specific set of closed questions is developed and asked for each interviewee in exactly the same order. Closed questions have a limited set of answers, that are often single-word answers. Therefore, you need to think about what you’re trying to achieve with your research project (i.e. your research aims) and decided on which approach would be best suited in your case.

It is also important to plan ahead with regards to who will be interviewed and how. You need to think about how you will approach the possible interviewees to get their cooperation, who will conduct the interviews, when to conduct the interviews and how to record the interviews. For each of these decisions, it’s also essential to make sure that all ethical considerations and data protection laws are taken into account.

Finally, you should think through how you plan to analyze the data (i.e., your qualitative analysis method) generated by the interviews. Different types of analysis rely on different types of data, so you need to ensure you’re asking the right types of questions and correctly guiding your respondents.

Simply put, you need to have a plan of action regarding the specifics of your interview approach before you start collecting data. If not, you’ll end up drifting in your approach from interview to interview, which will result in inconsistent, unusable data.

2. Not having good interview technique

While you’re generally not expected to become you to be an expert interviewer for a dissertation or thesis, it is important to practice good interview technique and develop basic interviewing skills .

Let’s go through some basics that will help the process along.

Firstly, before the interview , make sure you know your interview questions well and have a clear idea of what you want from the interview. Naturally, the specificity of your questions will depend on whether you’re taking a structured, semi-structured or unstructured approach, but you still need a consistent starting point . Ideally, you should develop an interview guide beforehand (more on this later) that details your core question and links these to the research aims, objectives and research questions.

Before you undertake any interviews, it’s a good idea to do a few mock interviews with friends or family members. This will help you get comfortable with the interviewer role, prepare for potentially unexpected answers and give you a good idea of how long the interview will take to conduct. In the interviewing process, you’re likely to encounter two kinds of challenging interviewees ; the two-word respondent and the respondent who meanders and babbles. Therefore, you should prepare yourself for both and come up with a plan to respond to each in a way that will allow the interview to continue productively.

To begin the formal interview , provide the person you are interviewing with an overview of your research. This will help to calm their nerves (and yours) and contextualize the interaction. Ultimately, you want the interviewee to feel comfortable and be willing to be open and honest with you, so it’s useful to start in a more casual, relaxed fashion and allow them to ask any questions they may have. From there, you can ease them into the rest of the questions.

As the interview progresses , avoid asking leading questions (i.e., questions that assume something about the interviewee or their response). Make sure that you speak clearly and slowly , using plain language and being ready to paraphrase questions if the person you are interviewing misunderstands. Be particularly careful with interviewing English second language speakers to ensure that you’re both on the same page.

Engage with the interviewee by listening to them carefully and acknowledging that you are listening to them by smiling or nodding. Show them that you’re interested in what they’re saying and thank them for their openness as appropriate. This will also encourage your interviewee to respond openly.

Need a helping hand?

3. Not securing a suitable location and quality equipment

Where you conduct your interviews and the equipment you use to record them both play an important role in how the process unfolds. Therefore, you need to think carefully about each of these variables before you start interviewing.

Poor location: A bad location can result in the quality of your interviews being compromised, interrupted, or cancelled. If you are conducting physical interviews, you’ll need a location that is quiet, safe, and welcoming . It’s very important that your location of choice is not prone to interruptions (the workplace office is generally problematic, for example) and has suitable facilities (such as water, a bathroom, and snacks).

If you are conducting online interviews , you need to consider a few other factors. Importantly, you need to make sure that both you and your respondent have access to a good, stable internet connection and electricity. Always check before the time that both of you know how to use the relevant software and it’s accessible (sometimes meeting platforms are blocked by workplace policies or firewalls). It’s also good to have alternatives in place (such as WhatsApp, Zoom, or Teams) to cater for these types of issues.

Poor equipment: Using poor-quality recording equipment or using equipment incorrectly means that you will have trouble transcribing, coding, and analyzing your interviews. This can be a major issue , as some of your interview data may go completely to waste if not recorded well. So, make sure that you use good-quality recording equipment and that you know how to use it correctly.

To avoid issues, you should always conduct test recordings before every interview to ensure that you can use the relevant equipment properly. It’s also a good idea to spot check each recording afterwards, just to make sure it was recorded as planned. If your equipment uses batteries, be sure to always carry a spare set.

4. Not having a basic risk management plan

Many possible issues can arise during the interview process. Not planning for these issues can mean that you are left with compromised data that might not be useful to you. Therefore, it’s important to map out some sort of risk management plan ahead of time, considering the potential risks, how you’ll minimize their probability and how you’ll manage them if they materialize.

Common potential issues related to the actual interview include cancellations (people pulling out), delays (such as getting stuck in traffic), language and accent differences (especially in the case of poor internet connections), issues with internet connections and power supply. Other issues can also occur in the interview itself. For example, the interviewee could drift off-topic, or you might encounter an interviewee who does not say much at all.

You can prepare for these potential issues by considering possible worst-case scenarios and preparing a response for each scenario. For instance, it is important to plan a backup date just in case your interviewee cannot make it to the first meeting you scheduled with them. It’s also a good idea to factor in a 30-minute gap between your interviews for the instances where someone might be late, or an interview runs overtime for other reasons. Make sure that you also plan backup questions that could be used to bring a respondent back on topic if they start rambling, or questions to encourage those who are saying too little.

In general, it’s best practice to plan to conduct more interviews than you think you need (this is called oversampling ). Doing so will allow you some room for error if there are interviews that don’t go as planned, or if some interviewees withdraw. If you need 10 interviews, it is a good idea to plan for 15. Likely, a few will cancel , delay, or not produce useful data.

5. Not keeping your golden thread front of mind

We touched on this a little earlier, but it is a key point that should be central to your entire research process. You don’t want to end up with pages and pages of data after conducting your interviews and realize that it is not useful to your research aims . Your research aims, objectives and research questions – i.e., your golden thread – should influence every design decision and should guide the interview process at all times. 

A useful way to avoid this mistake is by developing an interview guide before you begin interviewing your respondents. An interview guide is a document that contains all of your questions with notes on how each of the interview questions is linked to the research question(s) of your study. You can also include your research aims and objectives here for a more comprehensive linkage. 

You can easily create an interview guide by drawing up a table with one column containing your core interview questions . Then add another column with your research questions , another with expectations that you may have in light of the relevant literature and another with backup or follow-up questions . As mentioned, you can also bring in your research aims and objectives to help you connect them all together. If you’d like, you can download a copy of our free interview guide here .

Recap: Qualitative Interview Mistakes

In this post, we’ve discussed 5 common costly mistakes that are easy to make in the process of planning and conducting qualitative interviews.

To recap, these include:

If you have any questions about these interviewing mistakes, drop a comment below. Alternatively, if you’re interested in getting 1-on-1 help with your thesis or dissertation , check out our dissertation coaching service or book a free initial consultation with one of our friendly Grad Coaches.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Harvard Library
• Research Guides
• Faculty of Arts & Sciences Libraries

Library Support for Qualitative Research

• Interview Research

General Handbooks and Overviews

Qualitative research communities.

• Types of Interviews
• Recruiting & Engaging Participants
• Interview Questions
• Conducting Interviews
• Recording & Transcription
• Data Analysis
• Managing Interview Data
• Finding Extant Interviews
• Past Workshops on Interview Research
• Methodological Resources
• Remote & Virtual Fieldwork
• Data Management & Repositories
• Campus Access
• Interviews as a Method for Qualitative Research (video) This short video summarizes why interviews can serve as useful data in qualitative research.  
• InterViews by Steinar Kvale  Interviewing is an essential tool in qualitative research and this introduction to interviewing outlines both the theoretical underpinnings and the practical aspects of the process. After examining the role of the interview in the research process, Steinar Kvale considers some of the key philosophical issues relating to interviewing: the interview as conversation, hermeneutics, phenomenology, concerns about ethics as well as validity, and postmodernism. Having established this framework, the author then analyzes the seven stages of the interview process - from designing a study to writing it up.  
• Practical Evaluation by Michael Quinn Patton  Surveys different interviewing strategies, from, a) informal/conversational, to b) interview guide approach, to c) standardized and open-ended, to d) closed/quantitative. Also discusses strategies for wording questions that are open-ended, clear, sensitive, and neutral, while supporting the speaker. Provides suggestions for probing and maintaining control of the interview process, as well as suggestions for recording and transcription.  
• The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research by Amir B. Marvasti (Editor); James A. Holstein (Editor); Jaber F. Gubrium (Editor); Karyn D. McKinney (Editor)  The new edition of this landmark volume emphasizes the dynamic, interactional, and reflexive dimensions of the research interview. Contributors highlight the myriad dimensions of complexity that are emerging as researchers increasingly frame the interview as a communicative opportunity as much as a data-gathering format. The book begins with the history and conceptual transformations of the interview, which is followed by chapters that discuss the main components of interview practice. Taken together, the contributions to The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft encourage readers simultaneously to learn the frameworks and technologies of interviewing and to reflect on the epistemological foundations of the interview craft.
• International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry They host an annual confrerence at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which aims to facilitate the development of qualitative research methods across a wide variety of academic disciplines, among other initiatives.
• METHODSPACE An online home of the research methods community, where practicing researchers share how to make research easier.
• Social Research Association, UK The SRA is the membership organisation for social researchers in the UK and beyond. It supports researchers via training, guidance, publications, research ethics, events, branches, and careers.
• Social Science Research Council The SSRC administers fellowships and research grants that support the innovation and evaluation of new policy solutions. They convene researchers and stakeholders to share evidence-based policy solutions and incubate new research agendas, produce online knowledge platforms and technical reports that catalog research-based policy solutions, and support mentoring programs that broaden problem-solving research opportunities.
• << Previous: Taguette
• Next: Types of Interviews >>

Except where otherwise noted, this work is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License , which allows anyone to share and adapt our material as long as proper attribution is given. For details and exceptions, see the Harvard Library Copyright Policy ©2021 Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College.

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

Research Interviews: Modes and Types

Cite this chapter.

• Steve Mann 2  

7521 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Chapter 4 considers different interview modes and types. It is a wideranging chapter, as it aims to introduce important choices that face the qualitative interviewer. The chapter begins with a discussion of ‘mode’ (Halliday 1978: 138). For example, we think about whether an interview is face-to-face or conducted on the telephone or through Skype. This deliberation furthers some of the discussion around the importance of context that was developed in Chapter 3, as whether you are interviewing face-to-face or using some form of CMC (computer mediated communication) can be seen as an important dimension of interview context.

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
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Suggested further reading

Atkinson, R. (2012). The life story interview as a mutually equitable relationship. In Gubrium, J. F. et al. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft . (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Grinyer, A. and Thomas, C. (2012). The value of interviewing on multiple occasions or longitudinally. In Gubrium, J. F. et al. (Eds) The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft . (219–231). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Roulston, K. (2010). The Reflective Researcher: Learning to Interview in the Social Sciences . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (Chapter 4 covers various features of interview design).

Google Scholar  

UK DataService has a useful overview of most interview types (including an example transcripts) http://ukdataservice.ac.uk /teaching-resources/interview/qualitative.aspx.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Warwick, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Steve Mann

About this chapter

Mann, S. (2016). Research Interviews: Modes and Types. In: The Research Interview. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137353368_4

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137353368_4

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-137-35335-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-35336-8

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Best Practices for Reducing Bias in the Interview Process

Ilana bergelson.

Department of Urology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA

Elizabeth Takacs

Purpose of review.

Objective measures of residency applicants do not correlate to success within residency. While industry and business utilize standardized interviews with blinding and structured questions, residency programs have yet to uniformly incorporate these techniques. This review focuses on an in-depth evaluation of these practices and how they impact interview formatting and resident selection.

Recent Findings

Structured interviews use standardized questions that are behaviorally or situationally anchored. This requires careful creation of a scoring rubric and interviewer training, ultimately leading to improved interrater agreements and biases as compared to traditional interviews. Blinded interviews eliminate even further biases, such as halo, horn, and affinity bias. This has also been seen in using multiple interviewers, such as in the multiple mini-interview format, which also contributes to increased diversity in programs. These structured formats can be adopted to the virtual interviews as well.

There is growing literature that using structured interviews reduces bias, increases diversity, and recruits successful residents. Further research to measure the extent of incorporating this method into residency interviews will be needed in the future.

Introduction

Optimizing the criteria to rank residency applicants is a difficult task. The National Residency Matching Program (NRMP) is designed to be applicant-centric, with the overarching goal to provide favorable outcomes to the applicant while providing opportunity for programs to match high-quality candidates. From a program’s perspective, the NRMP is composed of three phases: the screening of applicants, the interview, and the creation of the rank list. While it is easy to compare candidates based on objective measures, these do not always reflect qualities required to be a successful resident or physician. Prior studies have demonstrated that objective measures such as Alpha Omega Alpha status, United States Medical Licensing Exams (USMLE), and class rank do not correlate with residency performance measures [ 1 ]. Due to the variability of these factors to predict success and recognition of the importance of the non-cognitive traits, most programs place increased emphasis on candidate interviews to assess fit [ 2 ].

Unfortunately, the interview process lacks standardization across residency programs. Industry and business have more standardized interviews and utilize best practices that include blinded interviewers, use of structured questions (situational and/or behavioral anchored questions), and skills testing. Due to residency interview heterogeneity, studies evaluating the interview as a predictor of success have failed to reliably predict who will perform well during residency. Additionally, resident success has many components, such that isolating any one factor, such as the interview, may be problematic and argues for a more holistic approach to resident selection [ 3 ]. Nevertheless, there are multiple ways the application review and interview can be standardized to promote transparency and improve resident selection.

Residency programs have begun adopting best practices from business models for interviewing, which include standardized questions, situational and/or behavioral anchored questions, blinded interviewers, and use of the multiple mini-interview (MMI) model. The focus of this review is to take a more in-depth look at practices that have become standard in business and to review the available data on the impact of these practices in resident selection.

Unstructured Versus Structured Interviews

Unstructured interviews are those in which questions are not set in advance and represent a free-flowing discussion that is conversational in nature. The course of an unstructured interview often depends on the candidate’s replies and may offer opportunities to divert away from topics that are important to applicant selection. While unstructured interviews may involve specific questions such as “tell me about a recent book you read” or “tell me about your research,” the questions do not seek to determine specific applicant attributes and may vary significantly between applicants. Due to their free-form nature, unstructured interviews may be prone to biased or illegal questions. Additionally, due to a lack of a specific scoring rubric, unstructured interviews are open to multiple biases in answer interpretation and as such generally show limited validity [ 4 ]. For the applicant, unstructured interviews allow more freedom to choose a response, with some studies reporting higher interviewee satisfaction with these questions [ 5 ].

In contrast to the unstructured interview, structured interviews use standardized questions that are written prior to an interview, are asked of every candidate, and are scored using an established rubric. Standardized questions may be behaviorally or situationally anchored [ 5 ]. Due to their uniformity, standardized interviews have higher interrater reliability and are less prone to biased or illegal questions.

Behavioral questions ask the candidate to discuss a specific response to a prior experience, which can provide insight into how an applicant may behave in the future [ 5 ]. Not only does the candidate’s response reflect a possible prediction of future behavior, it can also demonstrate the knowledge, priorities, and values of the candidate [ 5 ]. Questions are specifically targeted to reflect qualities the program is searching for (Table ​ (Table1) 1 ) [ 5 – 7 ].

Behavioral questions and character traits [ 5 – 7 ]

Situational questions require an applicant to predict how they would act in a hypothetical situation and are intended to reflect a realistic scenario the applicant may encounter during residency; this can provide insight into priorities and values [ 5 ]. For example, asking what an applicant would do when receiving sole credit for something they worked on with a colleague can provide insight into the integrity of a candidate [ 4 ]. These types of questions can be especially helpful for fellowships, as applicants would already have the clinical experience of residency to draw from [ 5 ].

Using standardized questions provides a method to recruit candidates with characteristics that ultimately correlate to resident success and good performance. Indeed, structured interview scores have demonstrated an ability to predict which students perform better with regard to communication skills, patient care, and professionalism in surgical and non-surgical specialties [ 8 •]. In fields such as radiology, non-cognitive abilities that can be evaluated in behavioral questions, such as conscientiousness or confidence, are thought to critically influence success in residency and even influence cognitive performance [ 1 ]. This has also been demonstrated in obstetrics and gynecology, where studies have shown that resident clinical performance after 1 year had a positive correlation with the rank list percentile that was generated using a structured interview process [ 9 ].

Creating Effective Structured Interviews

To be effective, standardized interview questions should be designed in a methodical manner. The first step in standardizing the interview process is determining which core values predict resident success in a particular program. To that end, educational leaders and faculty within the department should come to a consensus on the main qualities they seek in a resident. From there, questions can be formatted to elicit those traits during the interview process. Some programs have used personality assessment inventories to establish these qualities. Examples include openness to experience, humility, conscientiousness, and honesty. Further program-specific additions can be included, such as potential for success in an urban versus rural environment [ 10 ].

Once key attributes have been chosen and questions have been selected, a scoring rubric can be created. The scoring of each question is important as it helps define what makes a high-performing versus low-performing answer. Once a scoring system is determined, interviewers can be trained to review the questions, score applicant responses, and ensure they do not revise the questions during the interview [ 11 ]. Questions and the grading rubric should be further scrutinized through mock interviews with current residents, including discussing responses of the mock interviewee and modifying the questions and rubric prior to formal implementation [ 12 ]. Interviewer training itself is critical, as adequate training leads to improved interrater agreements [ 13 ]. Figure  1 demonstrates the steps to develop a behavioral interview question.

Example of standardized question to evaluate communication with scoring criteria

Rating the responses of the applicants can come with errors that ultimately reduce validity. For example, central tendency error involves interviewers not rating students at the extremes of a scale but rather placing all applicants in the middle; leniency versus severity refers to interviewers who either give all applicants high marks or give everyone low marks; contrast effects involve comparing one applicant to another rather than solely focusing on the rubric for each interviewee. These rating errors reflect the importance of training and providing feedback to interviewers [ 4 ].

Blinded Interviewers

Blinding the interviewers to the application prior to meeting with a candidate is intended to eliminate various biases within the interview process (Table ​ (Table2) 2 ) [ 14 , 15 ]. In addition to grades and test scores, aspects of the application that can either introduce or exacerbate bias include photographs, demographics, letters of recommendation, selection to medical honor societies, and even hobbies. Impressions of candidates can be formed prematurely, with the interview then serving to simply confirm (or contradict) those impressions [ 16 •]. Importantly, application blinding may also decrease implicit bias against applicants who identify as underrepresented in medicine [ 17 ].

Examples of bias [ 14 , 15 ]

Despite the proven success of these various interview tactics, their use in resident selection remains limited, with only 5% of general surgery programs using standardized interview questions and less than 20% using even a limited amount of blinding (e.g., blinding of photograph) [ 2 ]. Some programs have continued to rely on unblinded interviews and prioritize USMLE scores and course grades in ranking [ 18 ]. Due to their potential benefits and ability to standardize the interview process, it is critical that programs become familiar with the various interview practices so that they can select the best applicants while minimizing the significant bias in traditional interview formats.

Multiple Mini-interview (MMI)

The use of multiple interviews by multiple interviewers provides an opportunity to ask the applicant more varied questions and also allows for the averaging out of potential interviewer bias leading to more consistent applicant scoring and ability to predict applicant success [ 7 ]. Training of the interviewers in interviewing techniques, scoring, and avoiding bias is also likely to decrease scoring variability. Similarly, the use of the same group of interviewers for all candidates should be encouraged in order to limit variance in scoring amongst certain faculty [ 19 ].

One interview method that incorporates multiple interviewers and has had growing frequency in medical school interviews as well as residency interviews is the MMI model. This system provides multiple interviews in the form of 6–12 stations, each of which evaluates a non-medical question designed to assess specific non-academic applicant qualities [ 20 ]. While the MMI format can intimidate some candidates, others find that it provides an opportunity to demonstrate traits that would not be observed in an unstructured interview, such as multitasking, efficiency, flexibility, interpersonal skills, and ethical decision-making [ 21 ]. Furthermore, MMI has been shown to have increased reliability as shown in a study of five California medical schools that showed inter-interviewer consistency was higher for MMIs than traditional interviews which were unstructured and had a 1:1 ratio of interviewer to applicant [ 22 ].

The MMI format is also versatile enough to incorporate technical competencies even through a virtual platform. In general surgery interviews, MMI platforms have been designed to test traits such as communication and empathy but also clinical knowledge and surgical aptitude through anatomy questions and surgical skills (knot tying and suturing). Thus, MMIs are not only versatile, but also have an ability to evaluate cognitive traits and practical skills [ 23 ].

MMI also has the potential to reduce resident attrition. For example, in evaluating students applying to midwifery programs in Australia, attrition rates and grades were compared for admitted students using academic rank and MMI scores obtained before and after the incorporation of MMIs into their selection program. The authors found that when using MMIs, enrolled students had not only higher grades but significantly lower attrition rates. MMI was better suited to show applicants’ passion and commitment, which then led to similar mindsets of accepted applicants as well as a support network [ 24 ]. Furthermore, attrition rates have been found to be higher in female residents in general surgery programs [ 25 ]. Perhaps with greater diversity, which is associated with use of standardized interviews, the number of women can increase in surgical specialties and thus reduce attrition rate in this setting as well.

Impact of Interview Best Practices on Bias and Diversity

An imperative of all training programs is to produce a cohort of physicians with broad and diverse experiences representative of the patient populations they treat. To better address diversity within surgical residencies, particularly regarding women and those who are underrepresented in medicine, it is important that interviews be designed to minimize bias against any one portion of the applicant pool. Diverse backgrounds and cultures within a program enhance research, innovation, and collaboration as well as benefit patients [ 26 ]. Patients have shown greater satisfaction and reception when they share ethnicity or background with their provider, and underrepresented minorities in medicine often go on to work in underserved communities [ 27 ].

All interviewers undoubtedly have elements of implicit bias; Table ​ Table2 2 describes the common subtypes of implicit bias [ 14 ]. While it is difficult to eliminate bias in the interview process, unstructured or “traditional” interviews are more likely to risk bias toward candidates than structured interviews. Studies have demonstrated that Hispanic and Black applicants receive scores one quarter of a standard deviation lower than Caucasian applicants [ 28 ]. “Like me” bias is just one example of increased subjectivity with unstructured interviews, where interviewers prefer candidates who may look like, speak like, or share personal experiences with the interviewer [ 29 ].

Furthermore, unstructured interviews provide opportunities to ask inappropriate or illegal questions, including those that center on religion, child planning, and sexual orientation [ 30 ]. Inappropriate questions tend to be disproportionately directed toward certain groups, with women more likely to get questions regarding marital status and to be questioned and interrupted than male counterparts [ 28 , 31 ].

Structured interviews, conversely, have been shown to decrease bias in the application process. Faculty trained in behavior-based interviews for fellowship applications demonstrated that there were reduced racial biases in candidate evaluations due to scoring rubrics [ 12 ]. Furthermore, as structured questions are determined prior to the interview and involve training of interviewers, structured interviews are less prone to illegal and inappropriate questions [ 32 ]. Interviewers can ask additional questions such as “could you be more specific?” with the caveat that probing should be minimized and kept consistent between applications. This way the risk of prompting the applicant toward a response is reduced [ 4 ].

Implementing Interview Types During the Virtual Interview Process

An added complexity to creating standardized interviews is incorporating a virtual platform. Even prior to the move toward virtual interviews instituted during the COVID-19 pandemic, studies on virtual interviews showed that they provided several advantages over in-person interviews, including decreased cost, reduction in time away from commitments for applicants and staff, and ability to interview at more programs. A significant limitation, for applicants and for programs, is the inability to interact informally, which allows applicants to evaluate the environment of the hospital and the surrounding community [ 33 •]. Following their abrupt implementation in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual interviews have remained in place and likely will remain in place in some form into the future due to their significant benefits in reducing applicant cost and improving interview efficiency. Although these types of interviews are in their relative infancy in the resident selection process, studies have found that standardized questions and scoring rubrics that have been used in person can still be applied to a virtual interview setting without degrading interview quality [ 34 ].

The virtual format may also allow for further interview innovation in the form of standardized video interviews. For medical student applicants, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has trialed a standardized video interview (SVI) that includes recording of applicant responses, scoring, and subsequent release to the Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) application. Though early data in the pilot was promising, the program was not continued after the 2020 cycle due to lack of interest [ 35 ]. There is limited evidence supporting the utility of this type of interview in residency training, and one study found that these interviews did not add significant benefit as the scores did not associate with other candidate attributes such as professionalism [ 32 ]. Similarly, a separate study found no correlation between standardized video interviews and faculty scores on traits such as communication and professionalism. Granted, there was no standardization in what the faculty asked, and they were not blinded to academic performance of the applicants [ 36 ]. While there was an evaluation of six emergency medicine programs that demonstrated a positive linear correlation between the SVI score and the traditional interview score, it was a very low r coefficient; thus the authors concluded that the SVI was not adequate to replace the interview itself [ 37 ].

Conclusions: Future Steps in Urology and Beyond

The shift to structured interviews in urology has been slow. Within the last decade, studies consistent with other specialties demonstrated that urology program directors prioritized USMLE scores, reference letters, and away rotations at the program director’s institution as the key factors in choosing applicants [ 38 ]. More recently, a survey of urology programs found < 10% blinded the recruitment team at the screening step, with < 20% blinding the recruitment team during the interview itself [ 39 ]. In 2020 our program began using structured interview questions and blinded interviewers to all but the personal statement and letters of recommendation. After querying faculty and interviewees, we have found that most interviewers do not miss the additional information, and applicants feel that they are able to have more eye contact with faculty who are not looking down at the application during the interview. Structured behavioral interview questions have allowed us to focus on the key attributes important to our program. With time we hope to see that inclusion of these metrics helps diversify our resident cohort, improve resident satisfaction with the training program, and produce successful future urologists.

Despite the slow transition in urology and other fields, there is a growing body of literature in support of standardized interviews for evaluating key candidate traits that ultimately lead to resident success and reducing bias while increasing diversity. With time, the hope is that programs will continue incorporating these types of interviews in the resident selection process.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

This article is part of Topical Collection on Education

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance