[06/28/2024] Interviewing Methods 5-6

Previous[06/28/2024] Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis 3-4 Next[06/28/2024] Interviewing Methods 3-4

Last updated 11 months ago

[06/28/2024] Interviewing Methods 5-6

Grounded Theory

In the photograph, six college students descend a staircase outside of an academic building at a four-year university. Imagine that these students, among hundreds of others, transferred to the university from community colleges. Some qualitative researchers might be curious to learn more about the essence of the transfer experience, using phenomenological methods. Others might use narrative inquiry to harvest students’ stories of transferring to a four-year institution. One might also imagine another direction, wherein the researcher seeks to make explicit, through the development of a theory, the social processes students move through during their transfer journeys. This can be accomplished using grounded theory.

Six College Students Descending a Staircase

Grounded theory uses flexible, reflective, and systematic methods to explain human processes, interactions, and actions. Such processes, interactions, and actions have phases or steps. Emergent theoretical explanations, also known as substantive theories, are “grounded” in the voiced experiences of research participants.

Finding that little literature existed on transfer students’ adjustment processes, Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan (2019) used grounded theory to understand what former community college students face when entering four-year institutions. Shared below, the abstract from their study will be utilized throughout this subsection to further highlight facets of the grounded theory methodology:

This study explored community college transfer student (CCTS) identity, development, and engagement at four-year institutions. The grounded theory approach was applied to develop CCTS-specific theories. Relational maps and interview questions were included in the research design to explore meaning making given the intersections of identity, development, and engagement. Findings revealed three interlocking concepts, the mechanisms that CCTSs use to cope unanticipated conflicts they experience upon transitioning to their four-year institutions, leading to the desire for self-improvement. Implications for policy, practice, and research in addition to the study’s limitations are also discussed.

Through semi-structured interviewing and the use of novel practices explored in this topic area and in the later section on analysis, the authors developed a grounded theory to guide programming, practices, and ongoing research. As you will soon learn, many grounded theorists develop visualizations, to help readers understand the processual, interactive elements of the emergent theory. The figure below “provides a holistic perspective regarding how the population experiences [identity, development, and engagement] at four-year institutions in relation to conflict and explains the process of how they make meaning of them” (p. 468).

Community College Transfer Students and Constructivist Grounded Theory

Note. From p. 469: Rodriguez, S.K. & Reid Kerrigan, M. (2019). “A better person coming out than going in: Community college transfer students and constructivist grounded theory. Community College Journal, 43(6), 455-476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2018.1490670

Close your eyes and think about a process that you, or a friend, went through that may have involved various challenges or triumphs. Imagine exploring this process, working with participants and a team of researchers to locate the elements or facets that others may move or progress through. Write about the process you might want to explore. If you’re stuck on finding an example, consider these ideas: Carl wants to explore the processes individuals move through as they grieve the loss of a sibling. Roshna is interested in what it’s like to witness a partner or spouse’s child birthing journey.

The following provides another example of a process that could be explored: Deanna recognizes that homelessness is an experience shared by many college students, yet it is often invisible to other members of the community or simply viewed as static. In her exploration of students’ lived experiences of navigating homelessness, she hopes to develop a theory or model that shows the various dimensions, dynamics, and processes involved.

Developed and advanced by sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967), grounded theory is a method of generating theory from participants’ lived experiences using the tool of constant comparison (explored later). Undergirding the method is the social-psychological theory of symbolic-interactionism (Blumer, 1969; Mead, 1934), which promotes the view of interdependence among the self, the world, and social action. Neither of these three components has meaning devoid from the other; social processes, for instance, are understood in the context of individuals’ engagement with others and the broader world.

Notably, early variants of grounded theory were highly structured and postpositivist in orientation. The methodology has evolved considerably, with constructivist and transformative foci emerging in the social sciences. To add depth and focus to this topic area, we will explore constructivist grounded theory (CGT), advanced by Charmaz (2006, 2011), (Levitt, 2021), and others. Charmaz explains:

Grounded theory enables researchers to unravel the complexities of doing qualitative analysis and to understand mysteries and moments of human life. This method offers a set of flexible guidelines that demystify the analytic process and encourage researchers to stay involved in their projects. Grounded theory is a systematic yet flexible method that emphasizes data analysis, involves simultaneous data collection and analysis, uses comparative methods, and provides tools for constructing theories (p. 165).

A constructivist orientation to grounded theory reinforces the development of a space of wonder between participants and inquirer. Charmaz (2006) wrote, “As we try to look at their world through their eyes, we offer our participants respect and, to our best ability, understanding, although we may not agree with them. We try to understand but do not necessarily adopt or reproduce their views as our own; rather, we interpret them” (p. 19). CGT, in particular, attends to the role of researcher (i.e., the instrument) as an active generator of knowledge. As with other qualitative methods, grounded theory may be transformative; in fact, this is at the heart of psychologist Levitt’s (2021) work on critical constructivist grounded theory (CCGT).

Before we move on, let’s familiarize ourselves with the interpretive frameworks discussed in the course, What Is Qualitative Research? Take a few minutes to examine these concepts as presented in the following table.

Interpretive Framework

Ontological Assumption

Epistemological Assumption

Axiological Assumption

Postpositivism

Knowledge is “out there” in the world, independent of the researcher, to be found or discovered through experimental, quasi-experimental, or survey methods. Researchers test claims (hypotheses) and present new ones. A truth exists within the realms of probability.

To know something, postpositivist researchers rely on detachment from subjects, as well as positions of objectivity.

Values are often implicit—and should be reflected in the researcher’s expertise. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.

Constructivism

Multiple realities exist, and phenomena are shaped by those individuals experiencing them. Knowledge is something that humans construct.

The researcher helps to co-construct knowledge with participants. Subjectivities are embraced.

Values associated with the research agenda, and especially those of the researcher, are made explicit. Because the researcher is an “instrument” of research, they seek to make their positionality (beliefs, biases) overt. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.

Transformative

Knowledge reflects the lived experiences of individuals, groups, and/or cultures that have experienced marginalization. Their realities are centered.

The researcher may invite multiple epistemologies into the study, often seeing themself as advocate or member of the community served. Participants may be co-researchers, involved in the meaning-making process.

The research is value-bound, meaning that values inform and are inseparable from the research process, the research team, and the participants. Values are aligned with the social justice ideals and agenda of the project. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.

Pragmatism

Knowledge reflects what works at the time; the researcher focuses less on ontology, per se, and more on practice.

The researcher may invite multiple epistemologies into the study, as long as the research is grounded in practice and real-world application.

While values may not be as overt, they should focus on project outcomes and reflect professional codes of ethics. IRB (human subjects) guidelines are upheld.

Grounded Theory Questions

Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan’s (2019) study of community college transfer students (CCTS) addressed two overarching research questions:

How does a CCTS make meaning of his or her identity, development, and engagement at a four-year institution?
What theory/theories emerge from exploring CCTS identity, development, and engagement?

Identity, development, and engagement are intertwined processes that Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan sought to unpack by listening deeply to students’ experiences and engaging in a thoughtful, systematic analysis process. Grounded theory questions may, at times, read or sound like phenomenological questions. However, the core intent is to explain processes like stages of development, cycles of experiences, etc.

Here are some other grounded theory questions drawn from contemporary studies:

Taylor and Russell-Mayhew (2018), seeking to “bridge the gap between theory and practice,” asked this question: “How do women experience and maintain positive embodiment in a Western sociocultural context” (p. 344)? They generated a preliminary theory that displays the relationship between conceptualizing self and working to balance.
Herron, Priest, and Read (2020) developed a grounded theory that explored providers’ experiences of supporting people with an intellectual disability and dementia. In seeking to “construct a useful theory to explain the experiences of family and paid carers,” they asked, “How do family and paid carers view and experience supporting someone with an intellectual disability and dementia” (p. 1407)?
Remember Shalka’s (2019) study of college trauma and identity development? Using CGT, she asked two core questions: “How do experiences of trauma in college affect identity and identity development? How is traumatic experience in college incorporated into self-definition of identity?” Again, we see the strong connection between a question of lived experience and an intent to develop theoretical linkages.

Going back to the earlier example that involves investigating students’ lived experience of stress, let’s see how an exploration of this lived experience might be conceptualized as a CGT.

Phenomenology: What is the lived experience of stress for first-year college students during exam week? The researcher may invite open-ended reflections, perhaps through a series of interviews, regarding experiences of stress, the meanings that arise from stress, and participants’ understanding of stress during exam week.
Narrative inquiry: What stories, either those told to oneself or those conveyed externally, shape first-year students’ experiences of stress during exam week? The researcher invites the telling of stories, through interviews and other methods, focusing both on what is told and on how the stories are conveyed.
Constructivist grounded theory: What processes underlie first-year students’ lived experience of stress during exam week? What theory emerges from exploring students’ actions and interactions? Through the systematic methods explored next, including semi-structured interviewing, the researcher works with participants to co-create a grounded theory or model.

As noted prior, CGT offers a set of flexible, systematic procedures that can be used by grounded theorists, or adapted by other qualitative scholars. These include, but are not limited to, the constant comparative method (CCM), theoretical sampling, saturation, and multi-faceted coding and analysis processes.

The Roots of Grounded Theory

Constant comparative method

Grounded theory was initially known as the constant comparative method (CCM) of qualitative data analysis, advanced by Glaser and Strauss (1967). A grounded theory consists of categories (broader units of meaning that are derived, or codes, from the participant data) that are interrelated, connected, and/or linked. Developing the theory requires constant comparison- within and between interviewees’ data, to researcher field notes, among research team members, and so on. Such comparison allows for similarities, differences, quirks, and nuances to emerge. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) offer this description of CCM:

The basic strategy of the method is to do just what its name implies—constantly compare. The researcher begins with a particular incident . . . and compares it with another incident in the same set of data or in another set. These comparisons lead to tentative categories that are then compared to each other and to other instances. Comparisons are constantly made within and between levels of conceptualization until a theory can be formulated. p. 228

Whereas some qualitative methods rely on data collection followed by analysis, grounded theory endorses cycles of data collection and analysis enveloped by CCM. For instance, a researcher may interview three individuals, thereafter coding, analyzing, and comparing their data before commencing a second cluster of interviews. Subsequently, data from the second cluster is compared not only to each other, but to emergent codes or categories from the first set. So the cycle continues, until saturation (described below) is reached. Through the process, researchers utilize memoing as a comparative tool; memos are extensive notes used to make meaning of data comparisons, ask questions of the data, and promote trustworthiness.

Let’s turn to a few concrete examples of how contemporary scholars have used CCM:

Taylor and Russel-Mayhew’s (2018) study of women and embodiment exemplified CCM. Intentionally, they collected data over 8 months, “cycling between data collection and analysis as required by [CCM]” (p. 346). As a result, interviews toward the end of the study became more focused, with open-ended questions linking to analyses already completed.
In the community college transfer study discussed throughout this topic area, Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan (2019) utilized a reflective journal encompassing field notes, memos, and analytical ideas. “Every week, and as we coded, we would note our thoughts and experiences with interviews in this journal in the spirit of constant comparative method (CCM)” (p. 462). For the authors, CCM invited dependability and transferability.
Herron et al’s (2020) study on intellectual disability and dementia underscored a “non-linear iterative process . . . underpinned by constant comparative methods: data, codes and tentative categories were constantly compared with one another within and across transcripts to develop more abstract categories and to illuminate the relationships between properties of categories within the constructed theory” (p. 1409).

Now, we will apply what you’ve learned to a practice activity. Imagine that you’re planning a senior year spring break trip to an international island destination. Let’s say you won an all-expenses-paid trip through a raffle. Below is a list of items that you don’t already have, which you plan to purchase or borrow. First, read through the list of items. Begin to sort them in your mind, differentiating them from each other and contemplating how they are similar. Ask yourself, “Where would I find the following items?”

Bathing suit

Dried fruit

Dramamine

Hat

New undergarments

Rain jacket

Trail mix

Passport holder

Prescription anti-malaria med

Flip-flops

Ziploc bags

Sunscreen

Sunglasses

Candy bar

Travel-sized toiletries

Wallet

Then sort the items into one of the following categories, remembering that there are no right or wrong answers. You are comparing, differentiating, and contrasting in order to organize the items into clusters or categories:

Nearby neighborhood pharmacy
Local grocery (doesn’t have a pharmacy)
Favorite clothing store
Things to borrow from a friend

This activity modeled the principles of the CCM. You compared items to each other, sorting them into categories with which you also made comparisons while identifying differences and similarities. There may have been items that were more difficult to sort. Or, you may have found yourself moving items back and forth between categories, which is to be anticipated in CCM.

Now, imagine that five more items have been added to the list. These new items would prompt new comparisons and perhaps further rethinking of the original categories. Often, analysts make new categories as more data are collected, relying on trustworthiness techniques to ensure they are staying grounded in participants’ lived experiences.

Theoretical Sampling and Saturation

Theoretical Sampling

Imagine that you are an aspiring world-class chef who is perfecting a five-course farm-to-table meal at a small, co-owned restaurant. Meanwhile, your owner-partner is working on a plan to expand the business, opening a second location in an urban area with stiff competition. In developing the perfect five-course meal, you have tested each of the courses, multiple times, with regular customers. This has not been an easy process, as each sampler has different (yet overlapping) tastes. Still, you’ve been able to use their clustered feedback to enhance your recipes.

As you consider the business expansion, you also realize you will need to market test your meal with a broader sample. Thus, you carefully research your new constituent base, inviting your urban chef friends to offer feedback. Then, you set up several sampling groups with volunteers from the city in which you hope to establish a business.

What just happened here? You, chef extraordinaire, performed a strategy similar to that used by grounded theorists: theoretical sampling. Charmaz (2006) describes theoretical sampling as “seeking pertinent data to develop your emerging theory” (p. 96). In the example above, you sought both new and external perspectives to enhance your overall aim. Grounded theorists do something similar; as they apply the constant comparative method, they also ask this pertinent question: “Who else might I need to interview, or what other procedures might I enlist to flesh out this emerging category or theory?”

With theoretical sampling, categories, a theory, or a model are refined via new data sources (i.e., participants) or revised approaches. Charmaz (2001), regarding the latter, explains that “we revise our interview guides to build in focused questions about this category to develop its properties” (p. 167).

Here are a few snapshots of how saturation has been described by the scholars whose works we have explored:

Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan (2019) wrote of theoretical sampling as a next step for their study, for which a limitation was the decision not to gather certain demographic data. Specifically, they discuss the need to focus data gathering on students of color, “to contribute to theoretical development for this population” (461).
Ward (2005), in her study of African American counseling clients, drew from theoretical sampling to direct her approach to future interviews, such as including a focus on “perceptions of therapist, safety, disclosing, and concerns about who had access to records” (p. 475).

Saturation

As noted earlier, most grounded theorists conduct interviews in cycles, concurrently engaging in CCM, theoretical sampling, and analysis (which you’ll learn about later in this module). However, how does the grounded theorist come to know how much data to collect in order to substantially explain the process being explored? Charmaz (2016) answers:

The standard short grounded theory answer… stop when your categories are ‘saturated.’ The longer answer is that categories are ‘saturated’ when gathering fresh data no longer sparks new theoretical insights, nor reveals new properties… p. 113.

Contrary to popular opinion, there’s not a certain number of interviews by which a study is guaranteed to reach saturation. Why? Well, it depends on the research question, the phenomenon under exploration, and the designated sample of interest. Charmaz (2016) advises researchers to think, also, about how saturation claims affect a study’s credibility. “A study of 25 interviews may suffice for certain small projects but invites skepticism when the author’s claims are about, say, human nature or contradict established research” (p. 114). For this reason, many researchers continue theoretical sampling even after they believe saturation may have been reached.

Here are a few snapshots of how saturation has been used by the scholars whose works we have explored in this topic area:

Rodriguez and Reid Kerrigan (2019) wrote extensively of saturation in their peer-reviewed publication. Calling saturation “the intent and ultimate goal for grounded theory data collection, giving way to theory generation,” (p. 462) the authors reached saturation after interviewing 25 participants. “There were several indicators of data saturation including recognizing when similar themes emerged . . . hearing consistent ideas among participants; and the development of categories from our coding until no new themes emerged.”
Taylor and Russel-Mayhew’s (2018) study of women and embodiment also highlighted the importance of saturation. By interview six, the team had developed two tentative categories that were saturated by the eighth interview. However, “two additional interviews were completed to attempt to confirm saturation for a total of 10 participants” (p. 346).

As you may imagine, reaching saturation may be easier said than done. Each point of data collection is nuanced, given the particularities of individuals’ lived experiences.

Summary of Constructivist Grounded Theory

Grounded theory utilizes flexible, reflective, and systematic methods to explain, through a theory or model, human processes, interactions, and actions. Such processes, interactions, and actions have phases or steps. Emergent theoretical explanations, also known as substantive theories, are “grounded” in the voiced experiences of research participants.

We will review the distinctive characteristics of grounded theory, with focus on the constructivist method, including the kinds of questions grounded theorists seek to understand. Again, we will add onto the grid, which will help you compare the research traditions you’ve learned about thus far. We will also highlight core grounded theory practices in contemporary research.

In the table that follows, you can contrast grounded theory with narrative inquiry and phenomenology.

Characteristics of Research Methods

Research Method

Purpose-Focus?

Researcher’s role?

Unique practices?

Form-Outcome?

Grounded Theory

To explore and explicate human processes, actions, and interactions, generating a theory grounded in participants’ lived experiences.

The constructivist researcher positions oneself, given their role in co-constructing theory. Memoing is used throughout the process.

- Constant comparative method (CCM)

- Theoretical sampling

- Saturation

Through CCM, categories emerge and are linked, related, and connected in an emergent model that presents a theoretical explanation of the process being investigated.

Narrative Inquiry

To tell and study human experiences through story.

The researcher positions oneself, and may be co-located as both the primary instrument and a participant.

- Self-narratives (e.g., autoethnography)

- First person artifacts

- Three-dimensional inquiry space

Varies widely. Stories can be published intact, or may be analyzed for “storylines” (thematic elements) across participants. Stories may also be analyzed for their resonance with existing theories (e.g., feminist theory).

Phenomenology

To understand the essence (meaning) of lived experiences with phenomena.

The researcher attempts to suspend judgment, through epoche, and serves as the primary instrument.

- Epoche

- In-depth interviewing

- Phenomenological reduction*

- Imaginative variation*

* explored later, in the section on data analysis

Experiences, as data, are reduced to essential themes. The outcome describes the “essence” of the phenomenon being investigated.

Explore

Let’s explore some of grounded theory’s unique practices in the context of a scenario drawn from a contemporary research study.

Salvador, Paetz, and Tippetts (2020) conducted a CGT study of transformative learning processes for practicing music teachers who are encountering social justice. Like many constructivist studies, the team did an exceptional job of reflecting on their own positionality. For instance, each researcher began the study “by writing positionality statements, seeking to understand our roles, identities, and perceptions as participants and researchers, students and professor, white people, male and female, and choral, general, and instrumental music educators” (p. 196).

Review the abstract and then in the grid that follows it note how each excerpt from the study reflects the various grounded theory practices.

The purpose of this study was to investigate processes that led practicing music educators in a graduate course to examine their beliefs and practices regarding inclusion, responsiveness, equity, and justice. Using Charmaz’s constructivist approach to grounded theory, we interviewed 22 participants from MUS 8XX: Philosophy of Music Education. Constant comparative analysis yielded an explanatory framework, which we presented as a model and named “transformative learning processes (TLP) for practicing music teachers encountering social justice.” TLP comprises four interrelated components: “building Gemütlichkeit,” “grappling with difficult material,” “emotional intensity,” and “course structures,” with “stories” acting as a hub for each of the interconnected categories. By describing processes that led practicing teachers to examine their mindsets and plan to change their practices, TLP could provide guidance for music teacher educators at the graduate level regarding how to approach social justice topics in their teaching (p. 193).

Grounded Theory Practice and Description

Example from the article on learning processes for music teachers

Constant Comparative Method (CCM): Through data collection and analysis, which are recurring, the researcher(s) constantly compare incidents to incidents, codes to codes, categories to categories, and more; this is all in a quest to formulate a grounded theory.

“We constantly compared data as we co-constructed it, cycling in and out of data generation and analysis, revisiting interview data, artifacts, and memos while also asking, ‘What’s happening here?’” (p. 197-198)

Theoretical Sampling: The researcher seeks additional data, or revises procedures, to develop and refine the emerging theory (and related categories).

The research team tailored “future interviews to investigate emerging themes” (p. 197).

Saturation: Categories or themes in grounded theory research become saturated when no new data (e.g., insights, perspectives) emerge from additional data collection.

“ In constructivist GT, data collection [and comparison] continue until . . . we had heard it all . . . . Our memos indicated [this] occurred prior to interviewing all 22 participants” (p. 198).

Introduction of Exploring Interviewing

Phenomenologists, narrative inquirers, grounded theorists, and other qualitative researchers use the individual or group research interview to explore their questions. In this module, we will discuss the array of interviewing approaches utilized (e.g., unstructured to structured, one-time or multiplistic, face-to-face or virtual). Importantly, we will readdress the role of researcher as the core instrument of data collection, underscoring pertinent skills, knowledge, and abilities. Along the way, we will analyze “best practices” in interviewing by highlighting what to do, as well as what not to do.

Interviews take many forms. Humans endure job interviews, watch celebrity interviews on television or online, share political perspectives with pollsters, binge-listen to podcast interviews, and more. Encompassing a broad range of practices, the research interview is a process in which researcher(s) and participant(s) converse around questions related to the study’s core purpose. Though it is common for the researcher to direct the process (e.g., inviting responses to questions), some interview genres are wholly conversational. Further, the structure and place within which interviews happen can vary dramatically.

Though this topic area concentrates on individual (1:1) interviewing, the lessons apply also to group interviewing (i.e., the focus group). Herein, a group of individuals engage concurrently in response to interview questions. The researcher is situated as both a moderator and observer of the group process, given that the group’s interaction around the topic is as vital as their responses, individually, to research questions. On the surface, focus groups may appear economical and time-saving, yet they require deft, well-practiced skills on the interviewer’s part. Further, as Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted, “Obviously, a focus group is a poor choice for topics that are sensitive, highly personal, and culturally inappropriate to talk about in the presence of strangers” (p. 114).

Interview Types

Take a few minutes to reflect on an interview in which you were a participant or an observer. You might reflect on an interview for a scholarship, a job interview, a researcher interview, or something entirely different. In reflecting, touch on as many of the following questions as you are able.

What was the purpose of the interview?
How structured or unstructured was the interview?
Was the interview conversational or one-way?
Where did the interview take place?
What do you recall about the interviewer’s style (e.g., listening, tone, affect, pace, etc.)?
Did the structure, flow, and place of the interview align well with the purpose?

One of the most important things we hope you’ll take away from this lesson on interviewing is that structure, flow, place, and interviewer style should align with the interview’s purpose to assure trustworthiness. Even if one of these elements is out of whack, then the entire interview could be jeopardized.

Consider these miscommunications:

A narrative inquiry interview is held via online video-conferencing, given significant geographic distance between the researcher and participant. Due to connectivity issues, however, the duo experience uncomfortable lags, interruptions, and word omissions throughout the process. Both the participant and researcher leave the interview feeling frustrated.
A novice phenomenological researcher arranges a highly structured, 30-minute in-person interview around the topic of trauma. Consequently, the participant only skims the surface in what she shares about her lived experience. Worse, she leaves the interview feeling misled—and that her time may have been wasted.
A grounded theorist chooses the perfect place for a semi-structured interview with a participant about whom she knows very little. When the participant shares something about his lived experience that the researcher finds disagreeable, she reacts negatively and offers a flippant, unkind response. Though she immediately apologizes, the participant retreats into discomfort.
Hoping to make her focus group participants comfortable, a researcher schedules an interview in a cozy alcove within a local coffee shop. Due to noise from a band playing on the other side of the room, participants speak loudly, often interrupting each other. One participant leaves, uncomfortable with the lack of privacy and conversation afforded within the space.

To avoid these and other mistakes, let’s venture into a detailed exploration of interview structure, flow, place, and interviewer style.

Interview Structure

In the interviewing world, we often talk about interviews existing on a continuum. Imagine an unstructured interview on one end, a semi-structured interview in the middle, and a structured interview on the other end.

Interviewing Continuum

An unstructured interview is informal. A researcher may not have a focused research question, but seeks exploratory understanding of a phenomenon.

Example: Stephen is observing a religious ritual for the first time. After viewing the ritual, he imagines it would be helpful to ask participants to describe what transpired in their own words. Informally, he approaches several congregation members after the ceremony, asking them to describe their experiences.

On the other pole of the continuum is a structured interview, akin to a verbal survey and sometimes called a standardized interview. With a structured interview, a strict interview protocol (with a pre-made list of questions) is followed, in the same order, for all sessions.

Example: Maia is approached outside of her favorite restaurant, after her meal, and invited to participate in a 5-minute interview about her dining experience. The interviewer asks Maia six questions and does not deviate from his interview script.

Somewhere in the middle are semi-structured interviews, common in phenomenology, narrative inquiry, and grounded theory. An interview guide, also known as a protocol, is utilized. However, the researcher uses their discretion to reorder, rephrase or reword, follow-up on, or probe participants’ responses. As Merriam and Tisdell (2016) pointed out, “This format allows the researcher to respond to the situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the respondent, and to new ideas on the topic” (p. 111).

Example: Andre is invited to participate in a narrative inquiry study. As he shares his story in response to the interviewer’s initial questions, he appreciates how thoughtfully she probes and asks follow-up questions. Her approach helped jog his own reflections, sparking him to share nuances and novel details throughout the entire interview.

The structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interview approaches supersede psychological research and are used across many facets of industry to better understand user experiences (e.g., with products, processes, needs, etc.). Phenomenologists, narrative inquirers, and grounded theorists all tend to utilize semi-structured interviews (yet in different ways).

In-depth, phenomenological interviewing (Seidman, 2006) relies on open-ended questions inviting the participant to “reconstruct his or her experience within the topic under study” (p. 15). Multiple interviews are recommended, which mitigates superficiality. The first interview, up to 90 minutes in length, concentrates on life history. The second interview focuses “on the concrete details of the participants’ present lived experience” (p. 18). A final interview gleans broader meaning—intellectual and emotional—of the phenomenon under investigation.
Narrative inquirers use semi-structured, in-depth interviews to collect stories. Often materials like diaries and letters are concurrently shared (Mann, 2016). The focus of the narrative interview is to “obtain a broad and rich picture of [participants’] reality, which will inevitably depict the schemas or constructions through which the participant engages the world” (Josselson, 2013, p. 3). Consequently, many narrative interviewers conceptualize the interview as a partnership. Josselson (2013) conceives of the interview as dance, one that moves with the participant, mirroring and responding to their leads.
A grounded theory interview, which may be 1:1 or in a focus group context, should be “open-ended but directed, shaped yet emergent, and paced yet flexible” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 28). The interviewer, engaged in constant comparative analysis, is intent on learning about participants’ experiences of processes, actions, and interactions. One-time or multiple interviews may transpire. In some cases, researchers using member checking will hold additional brief interviews or focus groups inviting participants to review and respond to the draft theoretical model.

References

Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice Hall.

Chabris, C. F., & Simons, D. J. (2010). The invisible gorilla: how our intuitions deceive us. Crown.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory (1st ed.). Sage.

Charmaz, K. (2011). A constructivist grounded theory analysis of losing and regaining a valued self. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, and E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 165–204). The Guilford Press.

Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: experience and story in qualitative research. Jossey-Bass.

Comas-Díaz, L. & Torres Rivera, E. (2020). Liberation Psychology: Theory, Method, Practice, and Social Justice. American Psychological Association.

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

Evans, C. T. (2020). A fear come true: An autobiographical narrative inquiry of birth trauma through an Adlerian lens. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 76(4), 361–371.

Fetterman, D. M. (2010). Ethnography (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine.

Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36, 217–223.

Greene, J. C., & Caracelli, V. J. (Eds.). (1997). Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms. New directions for evaluation, (74). Jossey–Bass.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsible and naturalistic approaches. Jossey–Bass.

Harn, M., Azios, J., Azios, M., & Smith, D. (2019). The lived experience of college students with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A phenomenological study. College Student Journal, 53(4), 450-464.

Hathcoat, J., Meixner, C., & Nicholas, M. C. (2018). Ontology and epistemology. In P. Liamputtong (Ed.), Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer.

Illich, I. (1976). Medicine is a major threat to health. An interview by Sam Keen. Psychology Today, 9(12), 66–67.

Josselson, R. (2011). Narrative research: Constructing, deconstructing, and reconstructing story. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, & E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 224–242). The Guilford Press.

Josselson, R. (2013). Interviewing for qualitative inquiry: A relational approach. The Guilford Press.

Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., & Hoffman, D. J. (1997). The art and science of portraiture. Jossey–Bass.

Levitt, H. M. (2021). Essentials of critical constructivist grounded theory. American Psychological Association.

Lichtman, M. (2014). Qualitative research in education: A user’s guide (3rd ed.). Sage.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage Publications.

Mann, S. (2016). The research interview: Reflective practice and reflexivity in research processes. Palgrave Macmillan.

Mayan, M. J., (2009). Essentials of qualitative inquiry. Left Coast Press, Inc.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. University of Chicago Press.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey–Bass.

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2012). Learning in the field: An introduction to qualitative research (3rd ed.). Sage.

Saldaña, J., & Omasta, M. (2018). Qualitative research: Analyzing life. Sage.

Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. L. (1973). Field research: Strategies for a natural sociology. Prentice–Hall.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.

Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Taylor, K. A., & Russel-Mayhew, S. (2018). Working to balance: A preliminary constructivist grounded theory of young women’s positive embodiment. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 52(4), 339–365.

Walmsley, J., & Johnson, K. (2003). Inclusive research with people with learning disabilities: Past, present and future. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Wertz, F. J. (2011). A phenomenological psychological approach to trauma and resilience. In F. J. Wertz, K. Charmaz, L. M. McMullen, R. Josselson, R. Anderson, & E. McSpadden (Eds). Five ways of doing qualitative analysis (pp. 124–164). The Guilford Press.

Wolcott, H. F. (2010). Ethnography lessons: A primer. Left Coast Press.

Wycoff, K. L. (2021). Consultation with a community-based organization serving urban youth: A case study. Consulting Psychology Journal, 75(2), 163–180.

Zahavi, D. (2019). Phenomenology: The basics. Routledge.

Previous[06/28/2024] Observational Methods and Qualitative Data Analysis 3-4 Next[06/28/2024] Interviewing Methods 3-4

Last updated 11 months ago