research instruments for interview

Research Methodologies: Research Instruments

• Research Methodology Basics
• Research Instruments
• Types of Research Methodologies

Header Image

Types of Research Instruments

A research instrument is a tool you will use to help you collect, measure and analyze the data you use as part of your research.  The choice of research instrument will usually be yours to make as the researcher and will be whichever best suits your methodology. 

There are many different research instruments you can use in collecting data for your research:

• Interviews  (either as a group or one-on-one). You can carry out interviews in many different ways. For example, your interview can be structured, semi-structured, or unstructured. The difference between them is how formal the set of questions is that is asked of the interviewee. In a group interview, you may choose to ask the interviewees to give you their opinions or perceptions on certain topics.
• Surveys  (online or in-person). In survey research, you are posing questions in which you ask for a response from the person taking the survey. You may wish to have either free-answer questions such as essay style questions, or you may wish to use closed questions such as multiple choice. You may even wish to make the survey a mixture of both.
• Focus Groups.  Similar to the group interview above, you may wish to ask a focus group to discuss a particular topic or opinion while you make a note of the answers given.
• Observations.  This is a good research instrument to use if you are looking into human behaviors. Different ways of researching this include studying the spontaneous behavior of participants in their everyday life, or something more structured. A structured observation is research conducted at a set time and place where researchers observe behavior as planned and agreed upon with participants.

These are the most common ways of carrying out research, but it is really dependent on your needs as a researcher and what approach you think is best to take. It is also possible to combine a number of research instruments if this is necessary and appropriate in answering your research problem.

Data Collection

How to Collect Data for Your Research   This article covers different ways of collecting data in preparation for writing a thesis.

• << Previous: Research Methodology Basics
• Next: Types of Research Methodologies >>
• Last Updated: Sep 27, 2022 12:28 PM
• URL: https://paperpile.libguides.com/research-methodologies

Have a language expert improve your writing

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

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on January 27, 2022 by Tegan George . Revised on June 22, 2023.

A semi-structured interview is a data collection method that relies on asking questions within a predetermined thematic framework. However, the questions are not set in order or in phrasing.

In research, semi-structured interviews are often qualitative in nature. They are generally used as an exploratory tool in marketing, social science, survey methodology, and other research fields.

They are also common in field research with many interviewers, giving everyone the same theoretical framework, but allowing them to investigate different facets of the research question .

• Structured interviews : The questions are predetermined in both topic and order.
• Unstructured interviews : None of the questions are predetermined.
• Focus group interviews : The questions are presented to a group instead of one individual.

Table of contents

What is a semi-structured interview, when to use a semi-structured interview, advantages of semi-structured interviews, disadvantages of semi-structured interviews, semi-structured interview questions, how to conduct a semi-structured interview, how to analyze a semi-structured interview, presenting your results (with example), other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about semi-structured interviews.

Semi-structured interviews are a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews.

• Unlike in an unstructured interview, the interviewer has an idea of what questions they will ask.
• Unlike in a structured interview, the phrasing and order of the questions is not set.

Semi-structured interviews are often open-ended, allowing for flexibility. Asking set questions in a set order allows for easy comparison between respondents, but it can be limiting. Having less structure can help you see patterns, while still allowing for comparisons between respondents.

Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uneasy.
• Your research question is exploratory in nature. Participant answers can guide future research questions and help you develop a more robust knowledge base for future research.

Just like in structured interviews, it is critical that you remain organized and develop a system for keeping track of participant responses. However, since the questions are less set than in a structured interview, the data collection and analysis become a bit more complex.

Differences between different types of interviews

Make sure to choose the type of interview that suits your research best. This table shows the most important differences between the four types.

Semi-structured interviews come with many advantages.

Best of both worlds

No distractions, detail and richness.

However, semi-structured interviews also have their downsides.

Low validity

High risk of research bias, difficult to develop good semi-structured interview questions.

Since they are often open-ended in style, it can be challenging to write semi-structured interview questions that get you the information you’re looking for without biasing your responses. Here are a few tips:

• Define what areas or topics you will be focusing on prior to the interview. This will help you write a framework of questions that zero in on the information you seek.
• Write yourself a guide to refer to during the interview, so you stay focused. It can help to start with the simpler questions first, moving into the more complex ones after you have established a comfortable rapport.
• Be as clear and concise as possible, avoiding jargon and compound sentences.
• How often per week do you go to the gym? a) 1 time; b) 2 times; c) 3 times; d) 4 or more times
• If yes: What feelings does going to the gym bring out in you?
• If no: What do you prefer to do instead?
• If yes: How did this membership affect your job performance? Did you stay longer in the role than you would have if there were no membership?

Once you’ve determined that a semi-structured interview is the right fit for your research topic , you can proceed with the following steps.

Step 1: Set your goals and objectives

You can use guiding questions as you conceptualize your research question, such as:

• What are you trying to learn or achieve from a semi-structured interview?
• Why are you choosing a semi-structured interview as opposed to a different type of interview, or another research method?

If you want to proceed with a semi-structured interview, you can start designing your questions.

Step 2: Design your questions

Try to stay simple and concise, and phrase your questions clearly. If your topic is sensitive or could cause an emotional response, be mindful of your word choices.

One of the most challenging parts of a semi-structured interview is knowing when to ask follow-up or spontaneous related questions. For this reason, having a guide to refer back to is critical. Hypothesizing what other questions could arise from your participants’ answers may also be helpful.

Step 3: Assemble your participants

There are a few sampling methods you can use to recruit your interview participants, such as:

• Voluntary response sampling : For example, sending an email to a campus mailing list and sourcing participants from responses.
• Stratified sampling of a particular characteristic trait of interest to your research, such as age, race, ethnicity, or gender identity.

Step 4: Decide on your medium

It’s important to determine ahead of time how you will be conducting your interview. You should decide whether you’ll be conducting it live or with a pen-and-paper format. If conducted in real time, you also need to decide if in person, over the phone, or via videoconferencing is the best option for you.

Note that each of these methods has its own advantages and disadvantages:

• Pen-and-paper may be easier for you to organize and analyze, but you will receive more prepared answers, which may affect the reliability of your data.
• In-person interviews can lead to nervousness or interviewer effects, where the respondent feels pressured to respond in a manner they believe will please you or incentivize you to like them.

Step 5: Conduct your interviews

As you conduct your interviews, keep environmental conditions as constant as you can to avoid bias. Pay attention to your body language (e.g., nodding, raising eyebrows), and moderate your tone of voice.

Relatedly, one of the biggest challenges with semi-structured interviews is ensuring that your questions remain unbiased. This can be especially challenging with any spontaneous questions or unscripted follow-ups that you ask your participants.

After you’re finished conducting your interviews, it’s time to analyze your results. First, assign each of your participants a number or pseudonym for organizational purposes.

The next step in your analysis is to transcribe the audio or video recordings. You can then conduct a content or thematic analysis to determine your categories, looking for patterns of responses that stand out to you and test your hypotheses .

Transcribing interviews

Before you get started with transcription, decide whether to conduct verbatim transcription or intelligent verbatim transcription.

• If pauses, laughter, or filler words like “umm” or “like” affect your analysis and research conclusions, conduct verbatim transcription and include them.
• If not, you can conduct intelligent verbatim transcription, which excludes fillers, fixes any grammatical issues, and is usually easier to analyze.

Transcribing presents a great opportunity for you to cleanse your data . Here, you can identify and address any inconsistencies or questions that come up as you listen.

Your supervisor might ask you to add the transcriptions to the appendix of your paper.

Coding semi-structured interviews

Next, it’s time to conduct your thematic or content analysis . This often involves “coding” words, patterns, or recurring responses, separating them into labels or categories for more robust analysis.

Due to the open-ended nature of many semi-structured interviews, you will most likely be conducting thematic analysis, rather than content analysis.

• You closely examine your data to identify common topics, ideas, or patterns. This can help you draw preliminary conclusions about your participants’ views, knowledge or experiences.
• After you have been through your responses a few times, you can collect the data into groups identified by their “code.” These codes give you a condensed overview of the main points and patterns identified by your data.
• Next, it’s time to organize these codes into themes. Themes are generally broader than codes, and you’ll often combine a few codes under one theme. After identifying your themes, make sure that these themes appropriately represent patterns in responses.

Analyzing semi-structured interviews

Once you’re confident in your themes, you can take either an inductive or a deductive approach.

• An inductive approach is more open-ended, allowing your data to determine your themes.
• A deductive approach is the opposite. It involves investigating whether your data confirm preconceived themes or ideas.

After your data analysis, the next step is to report your findings in a research paper .

• Your methodology section describes how you collected the data (in this case, describing your semi-structured interview process) and explains how you justify or conceptualize your analysis.
• Your discussion and results sections usually address each of your coded categories.
• You can then conclude with the main takeaways and avenues for further research.

Example of interview methodology for a research paper

Let’s say you are interested in vegan students on your campus. You have noticed that the number of vegan students seems to have increased since your first year, and you are curious what caused this shift.

You identify a few potential options based on literature:

• Perceptions about personal health or the perceived “healthiness” of a vegan diet
• Concerns about animal welfare and the meat industry
• Increased climate awareness, especially in regards to animal products
• Availability of more vegan options, making the lifestyle change easier

Anecdotally, you hypothesize that students are more aware of the impact of animal products on the ongoing climate crisis, and this has influenced many to go vegan. However, you cannot rule out the possibility of the other options, such as the new vegan bar in the dining hall.

Since your topic is exploratory in nature and you have a lot of experience conducting interviews in your work-study role as a research assistant, you decide to conduct semi-structured interviews.

You have a friend who is a member of a campus club for vegans and vegetarians, so you send a message to the club to ask for volunteers. You also spend some time at the campus dining hall, approaching students at the vegan bar asking if they’d like to participate.

Here are some questions you could ask:

• Do you find vegan options on campus to be: excellent; good; fair; average; poor?
• How long have you been a vegan?
• Follow-up questions can probe the strength of this decision (i.e., was it overwhelmingly one reason, or more of a mix?)

Depending on your participants’ answers to these questions, ask follow-ups as needed for clarification, further information, or elaboration.

• Do you think consuming animal products contributes to climate change? → The phrasing implies that you, the interviewer, do think so. This could bias your respondents, incentivizing them to answer affirmatively as well.
• What do you think is the biggest effect of animal product consumption? → This phrasing ensures the participant is giving their own opinion, and may even yield some surprising responses that enrich your analysis.

After conducting your interviews and transcribing your data, you can then conduct thematic analysis, coding responses into different categories. Since you began your research with several theories about campus veganism that you found equally compelling, you would use the inductive approach.

Once you’ve identified themes and patterns from your data, you can draw inferences and conclusions. Your results section usually addresses each theme or pattern you found, describing each in turn, as well as how often you came across them in your analysis. Feel free to include lots of (properly anonymized) examples from the data as evidence, too.

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

A semi-structured interview is a blend of structured and unstructured types of interviews. Semi-structured interviews are best used when:

• You have prior interview experience. Spontaneous questions are deceptively challenging, and it’s easy to accidentally ask a leading question or make a participant uncomfortable.

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.

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.

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.

Inductive reasoning is a bottom-up approach, while deductive reasoning is top-down.

Inductive reasoning takes you from the specific to the general, while in deductive reasoning, you make inferences by going from general premises to specific conclusions.

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). Semi-Structured Interview | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved April 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/semi-structured-interview/

Is this article helpful?

Tegan George

Other students also liked, structured interview | definition, guide & examples, unstructured interview | definition, guide & examples, what is a focus group | step-by-step guide & examples, unlimited academic ai-proofreading.

✔ Document error-free in 5minutes ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

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
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Researching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity

Anne e pezalla.

Pennsylvania State University, USA

Jonathan Pettigrew

Michelle miller-day.

Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher characteristics have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. This concept, although widely acknowledged, has garnered little systematic investigation. This article discusses the interviewer characteristics of three different interviewers who are part of a qualitative research team. The researcher/interviewers – and authors of this article – reflect on their own and each other’s interviews and explore the ways in which individual interview practices create unique conversational spaces. The results suggest that certain interviewer characteristics may be more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from respondents depending on the perceived sensitivity of the topic, but that variation in interviewer characteristics may benefit rather than detract from the goals of team-based qualitative inquiry. The authors call for the inclusion of enhanced self-reflexivity in interviewer training and development activities and argue against standardization of interviewer practices in qualitative research teams.

Introduction

Inner Silence Writing, Reflecting, Hoping Slipping into Truth Interviewing moments Take me by surprise Like Sunlight ( Janesick, 1998 : 53)

The level of researcher involvement in qualitative interviewing – indeed, the embodiment of the unique researcher as the instrument for qualitative data collection – has been widely acknowledged (e.g. Cassell, 2005 ; Rubin and Rubin, 2005 ; Turato, 2005 ). Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher attributes have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. Although it is common for scholars to advocate for interviewer reflexivity ( Ellis and Berger, 2003 ; Pillow, 2003 ) and acknowledge the researcher as the primary instrument in qualitative interview studies ( Guba and Lincoln 1981 ; Merriam 2002 ), with some notable exceptions (e.g. Pitts and Miller-Day, 2007 ; Watts, 2008 ) few have actually examined the qualitative interview as a collaborative enterprise, as an exchange between two parties, reflecting on the ways in which the interviewer affects the organization of this talk-in-interaction and the processes by which the talk is produced. Given this, the first aim of this study is to provide a reflexive account of how three different interviewers (authors Jonathan, Annie, and Michelle) individually facilitate unique conversational spaces in their qualitative interviews.

Understanding the qualitative interview as social interaction is important for any sole qualitative researcher, but as Miller-Day et al. (2009) pointed out, this may be particularly germane for qualitative research teams (QRT). Herriott and Firestone (1983) argued that when there is more than one interviewer on a QRT, inconsistencies in interview style and approach may affect the quality of the research conversation and ultimately the study findings. Indeed, several published resources on QRTs suggest that interviewers should receive the same standard training with an eye toward producing consistent strategies and credible findings ( Bergman and Coxon, 2005 ; United States Agency for International Development’s Center for Development Information and Evaluation, 1996 ). Unfortunately, current literature addressing QRTs has primarily focused on the relationship dynamics among research team members (e.g. Fernald and Duclos, 2005 ; Rogers-Dillon, 2005 ; Sanders and Cuneo, 2010 ; Treloar and Graham, 2003 ) and on group analytical procedures (e.g. Guest and MacQueen, 2007 ; MacQueen et al., 1999 ; Olesen et al., 1994 ) rather than on the team member roles (e.g. interviewer, analyst) or data collection practices (e.g. strategies for building rapport). As QRTs are becoming more prevalent, especially in funded research ( Barry et al., 1999 ; Ferguson et al., 2009 ), there is a need for more information about how to maximize the use of multiple interviewers and maintain a focus on the unified research goals while respecting the flexibility of the in-depth qualitative interview as talk-in-interaction ( Mallozzi, 2009 ; Miller-Day et al., 2009 ). Toward that end, the second aim of this study is to reflect on and discuss implications of the study findings for qualitative research teams.

Researcher-as-instrument

The phrase researcher-as-instrument refers to the researcher as an active respondent in the research process ( Hammersley and Atkinson, 1995 ). Researchers ‘use their sensory organs to grasp the study objects, mirroring them in their consciousness, where they then are converted into phenomenological representations to be interpreted’ ( Turato, 2005 : 510). It is through the researcher’s facilitative interaction that a conversational space is created – that is, an arena where respondents feel safe to share stories on their experiences and life worlds ( Owens, 2006 ).

Across the years, scholars have considered the nature of researcher-as-instrument as interpreter of empirical materials and as involved in the construction of ideas ( Janesick, 2001 ; Singer et al., 1983 ). This consideration began to grow after feminist UK scholars such as Oakley (1981) and Graham (1983) criticized quantitative-based research methods that assumed a detached and value-free researcher in the acquisition and interpretation of gathered data, and was further developed by feminist ethnographers such as Stack (1995) , who offered seminal research on ‘dramatizing both writer and subject’ in fieldwork on neighborhoods and communities (p. 1). More recently, scholars have extended their interest of researcher-instruments to consider specific interviewing strategies. Conversation analysis tools have often been used to examine the intricacies of interview conversations, studying the ways in which the ‘how’ of a given interview shapes the ‘what’ that is produced ( Holstein and Gubrium, 1995 ; Pillow, 2003 ).

While qualitative scholars agree that a conversational space must be created, they often disagree as to what that space should look like. Some scholars argue for a Rogerian interviewing space, where empathy, transparency, and unconditional positive regard are felt ( Janesick, 2001 ; Mallozzi, 2009 ; Matteson and Lincoln, 2009 ). Pitts and Miller-Day (2007) documented specific trajectories experienced by qualitative interviewers when establishing rapport with research participants, and the authors argue that a feeling of interpersonal connection was necessary for the qualitative interviewer and interviewee to develop a partnership. These claims are grounded in the feminist or postructuralist perspective, which hold that ‘the essential self … is not automatically revealed in a neutral environment but can and might need to be benevolently coaxed out into a safe environment, where it can be actualized’ ( Mallozzi, 2009 : 1045).

Others advocate against a feminist approach to interviewing. Tanggaard (2007) , for example, viewed empathy to be a dangerous interviewer quality because it tends to create a superficial form of friendship between interviewer and respondent. Self-disclosure has been similarly critiqued ( Abell et al., 2006 ). These critics hold that self-disclosure may actually distance the interviewer from the respondent when the self-disclosure portrays the interviewer as more knowledgeable than the respondent. These studies question the popular assumption that displays of empathy or acts of self-disclosure are naturally interpreted by the respondent as a means of establishing a conversational space of rapport and mutual understanding.

So where do these opposing viewpoints lead us as researchers? For the three of us who are authoring this article, the answer to that question is an unsatisfactory, ‘we are not sure.’ Working as part of a QRT, we were trained in a systematic manner, provided with clear procedures for carrying out our qualitative interviews, and educated in the ultimate goals of the research project. The interviewees in this team project were a fairly homogenous group – rural 6–7th grade students – and all three of us interviewed youth in both grades, both male and female, gregarious and stoic. Yet, the interviews we conducted all turned out to be very different. What stood out to us was that our individual attributes as researchers seemed to impact the manner in which we conducted our interviews and affected how we accomplished the primary objective of the interviews, which was to elicit detailed narratives from the adolescents. Hence, we set forth to better understand how we, as research instruments, individually facilitated unique conversational spaces in our interviews and determine if there were some researcher attributes or practices that were more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from the adolescent respondents. Additionally, we sought to reflect on the emergent findings and offer a discussion of how unique conversational spaces might impact QRTs.

Gathering and analyzing empirical materials

The team-based qualitative research, participants.

The empirical materials for the current study came from a larger study designed to understand the social context of substance use for rural adolescents in two Mid-Atlantic States. A total of 113 participants between 12 and 19 years old ( M = 13.68, SD = 1.37) were recruited from schools identified as rural based on one of two main criteria: (a) the school district being located in a ‘rural’ area as determined by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, n.d.; and (b) the school’s location in a county being considered ‘Appalachian’ according to the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). Participating schools served a large population of economically disadvantaged students identified by family income being equal to or less than 180 percent of the United States Department of Agricultural federal poverty guidelines and these guidelines start at an annual salary of $20,036 but increase by $6,919 for each additional household member ( Ohio Department of Education 2010 ).

Interview team

Eleven interviewers comprised the qualitative research team for this team-based study. All underwent at least four hours of interviewer training, which reviewed interview protocol and procedures, summarized guidelines for ethical research, and included interview practice and feedback. During training, interviewers were given a clear interview schedule. Because the interviews were semistructured, the interviewers were instructed to use the schedule as a guide. They were instructed not to read the questions word-for-word from the interview schedule, but instead to use their own phrasing for asking each question, use additional probes or prompts if necessary, and use a communication style that felt comfortable and natural to them. Interviewers were also instructed to interact with their participants as learners attempting to understand the participants’ experiences and realities from their perspectives ( Baxter and Babbie, 2004 ). All interviewers on the team participated in mock interview sessions and were provided with initial feedback about their interview skill.

The interviews themselves were conducted in private locations within the schools such as guidance counselors’ offices or unused classrooms or conference rooms. In most cases, either the adult school contact or the study liaison brought students to their interview site to ensure that the interviewer did not know the students’ names – only their unique identification number. Researchers assured all students their responses would remain confidential, in accordance with Institutional Review Board standards, and the interviewee was permitted to withdraw his/her data from the study at any time. All interviews were digitally recorded and ranged from 18–91 minutes in length. This length is typical of interviews dealing with sensitive topics such as drug use in a school-based setting ( Alberts et al., 1991 ; Botvin et al., 2000 ).

The present study: Three Voices in the Crowd

Interview sample.

For the purpose of the present study we all agreed that self-reflexivity was necessary to ‘understand ourselves as part of the process of understanding others’ ( Ellis and Berger, 2003 : 486), increase the transparency of our findings, and increase the legitimacy and validity of our research. Therefore, we elected to limit our analysis to only those interviews that the three of us conducted, excluding transcripts from the other eight interviewers in the team-based study. Transcripts of the interviews were provided by a professional transcriptionist who was blind to the purpose of the study. A total of 18 interviews were transcribed (six per interviewer). Further refining the sample, we elected to analyze only interviews that we deemed to be of sufficient quality. Transcript quality was based on two indicators: (a) the level of transcription detail; and (b) the ability of the respondent to speak and understand English. Transcripts that were poorly done (i.e. that failed to include sufficient detail from the interview audio file) or that indicated that the respondent did not understand English were rated as low quality and were not included in final analyses. We took this step to ensure that all transcripts in the study sample were of sufficient quality and provided adequate detail to decipher our interviewer practices. From the 18 originally submitted transcripts, we found 13 to be of sufficient quality, and retained them for analysis.

Analysis procedures

Following Baptiste’s (2001) advice, the first step in our analysis was to acknowledge our interpretivist orientation and to honestly discuss among ourselves the risks involved with self-reflexively examining our own work. If you think it is difficult to listen to your own voice in an audio-recording, imagine listening to your own voice and simultaneously reading the text illustrating your own interview errors, dysfluencies, and awkward pauses! This first step was perhaps the most difficult, but it resulted in a shared agreement for honest self-reflection and analysis.

The next step involved restricting our analysis to three specifically selected topics from the research interview. The three discussion topics included rural living, identity and future selves, and risky behavior. We identified these topics of discussion because they each represented a different level of emotional risk for the respondents ( Corbin and Morse, 2003 ), based on the assumptions that (a) respondents were all relatively similar in their emotional well-being – specifically, that none were too emotionally fragile to engage in a conversation with us, and (b) discussing topics of illegal or private activities would arouse more powerful emotions in respondents than would topics of legal and mundane activities. Across the entire sample of interviews, conversations on rural living were seen as fairly low-risk topics of discussion. The topic often served as a warm-up for many interview conversations because the topic was easy for respondents to discuss. Conversations on identity and future selves were typically perceived as moderately uncomfortable for respondents. Respondents were asked to talk about their personality characteristics and who they wanted to become in the future. Although some respondents appeared to enjoy the opportunity to talk about themselves, many appeared mildly uncomfortable doing so, perhaps because they were being asked to talk about themselves with someone they did not know. Conversations on risky behavior were often perceived to be more dangerous. Despite being reassured that their stories would remain confidential, respondents were nevertheless being asked to disclose information about potentially illegal activities in which they had taken part. These topics of discussion were not always mutually exclusive (e.g. respondents often talked about risky behavior when they discussed rural living); but, because every interview in the larger study included topics of discussion that were low, moderate, and highly sensitive, we believed that the three chosen topics of discussion represented an appropriate cross-section of the interview.

Dividing interviews into topics of discussion provided a way to organize long transcripts into relatively distinct topical areas. It also allowed us to examine interviewer practices across comparable topics of discussion, and to assess the ways in which particular characteristics facilitated different conversational spaces.

The next step involved identifying and labeling the discussion of each of the three topics within each of the 13 transcripts. As we labeled the related passages in the transcripts, each of us followed the same iterative analytic process, commencing with an analysis of our own individual transcripts and followed by a cross-case analysis of each others’ transcripts. Our individual, within-case analysis proceeded along four main steps: reading through our own transcripts 2–3 times before extracting the separate topics of discussion; then within each topic of discussion across all of our own interviews, we inductively identified, interpreted, and labeled what we each saw as important in the utterances, sequencing, and details of the conversational interaction, assessing the ways in which interviewer practices seemed to facilitate and to inhibit respondent disclosure. For our purposes, we defined an interviewer practice as an action performed repeatedly. These practices were eventually categorized into groups of interviewer characteristics. We conceptually defined an interviewer characteristic as a distinguishing general feature or overall quality of the interviewer. Throughout this process we individually developed and refined our code lists, discussing our emergent codes with one another via weekly meetings and email correspondence. As part of this process, we coded our own transcripts and then shared and discussed our code list with the others. Next, each of us (re) coded a portion of each other’s transcripts and calculated the percentage of raw coding agreement. Disagreements were negotiated until we all reached consensus on a working list of codes. This cross-case analysis did not commence until we had reached a minimum coding agreement of .80. Within the topic of rural living, for example, if two of us each generated five codes to describe one interviewer’s researcher-as-instrument characteristics, consensus was necessary on at least four of those codes before a trustworthy assessment could be made.

During the cross-case analysis we compared and contrasted the coded material within and across the entire sample of transcripts to identify discrepancies and consistencies in our codes. From this process, we reduced the code list to a common set of researcher-as-instrument characteristics and interviewing practices that were present in the utterances, sequencing, and details of the conversational interactions. Throughout this process we explicitly identified evidence (excerpts from the interview transcripts) for any research claim to connect the empirical materials with any findings ( Maxwell, 1996 ). The three of us met periodically to conference, share ideas, and challenge and refine emergent findings. We used Nvivo 8 to manage and analyze the interview data. In the end, we were able to (a) identify and describe individual interviewer practices that served to characterize each of us as individual interviewers, and (b) compare and contrast our individual differences within and across the different topics in the interview conversation. During this comparison we paid special attention to the adolescent’s contribution to the conversation and his or her level of disclosure.

Interviewer characteristics

Annie’s general interviewer characteristics were coded as affirming, energetic , and interpretive. The affirming characteristic was defined as ‘showing support for a respondent’s idea or belief’ and is illustrated in the following excerpt:

Annie : What do you do? Resp : I help the milkers, I help – Annie : You know how to milk a cow? That’s so cool, that’s great. Resp : Yeah, but you have to watch out ’cause they kick sometimes. ’Cause they don’t want you messing with their teats – they kick, it’s, uh … Annie : Have you been kicked? Resp : I got kicked in the arm, but I’m scared I’m gonna get kicked in the face one of these days. Annie : Yeah, that would really hurt, huh? Oh, wow, that’s amazing.

Comments like ‘that’s so cool, that’s great,’ and ‘Oh, wow, that’s amazing’ illustrated the affirmation. Annie’s affirming characteristic could be seen in other transcript passages in phrases such as ‘great,’ ‘awesome,’ ‘amazing,’ and ‘excellent.’ Annie’s interviewer characteristics were also coded as energetic , defined as ‘showing wonder, astonishment, or confusion by something respondent said that was unexpected, or remarkable.’

Annie : So you like dirt bikes. Do you have one of your own? Resp : Yeah, I have a, it’s a one, it’s a two-fifty. It’s like a, it’s a CRX 250, it’s like … Annie : Oh, wow! Is it a pretty big bike? Wow, what do you like to do on it? Resp : I just ride around in the fields and usually chase after deer on it. Annie : Really!

Annie : Um, is your sister older or younger? Resp : She’s younger, she’s ten. Annie : So you kinda look out for her? Resp : Yeah. She likes to feed the calves. Annie : Oooooh!! Cute little baby calves. That’s neat. Wow! How unique. That’s really, really cool.

Annie : What’s a – dwarf bunny? What is that? Resp : Yeah, they’re like little bunnies – they’re about that big. Annie : Like real bunnies? Resp : Yeah, they’re about that big – Annie : Oh, dwarf bunnies. Oooh!

The sheer number of exclamation marks in Annie’s transcripts illustrated her energetic interviewer characteristic, but the words she used (wow, really, oooooh) also illustrated the lively quality of her interview approach.

Lastly, Annie was also characterized as being interpretive , conceptually defined as ‘expressing a personal opinion or interpretation regarding something a respondent said.’ For example:

Resp : And I chugged it and like, I passed out. Annie : Did you have to go to the hospital? Resp : Oh no. We were in the middle of the woods and we weren’t saying anything ’cause we all would get busted. Annie : Oh my gosh, oh, you must have felt terrible.

Annie : Do you think that he drinks beer, or does chew or smokes cigarettes? Resp : He probably does, but – Annie : Do you think so? Um, and so when he offered this to you, were you, were you uncomfortable? Like, did you feel kind of weird?

In all of the above passages, Annie’s interpretive nature is evident in instances where she offers her own construal of the respondent’s story (e.g. ‘you must have felt terrible’), or when she creates a hypothetical scenario for the respondent to comment on (‘do you think he drinks beer?’). Such utterances illustrate her tendency to offer an opinion, either in response to a respondent’s story or before a conversation formally began.

Jonathan’s interviewer characteristics were characterized by neutrality and naivety. The neutral interviewer characteristic, defined as ‘not engaged on one side of argument or another; neither affirming nor disapproving of respondent’s stories,’ was best illustrated by the lack of extensive commentary Jonathan provided in his interviews. In comparison to Annie’s transcripts, Jonathan’s transcripts were characterized by shorter utterances, fewer opinionated responses, and very few exclamation marks:

Jonathan : Who were you living with in [name of town]? Resp : My mom. But she, my grandma got custody of me, so. Jonathan : What, what happened to do that? Like, what, what brought you? Resp : Well, I got put in [the local in-patient treatment facility] ’cause I said I was gonna kill myself. Jonathan : Oh, okay.

Jonathan : Okay. What, um, so does your dad mind if you drink then? Like, if he found out that you were going to the bar party and that you had gotten drunk, what would he say? Resp : He probably wouldn’t do anything because, like, I used to have parties at his house, at my dad’s house. But then he got, then he went to jail, so we stopped [lowers tone, quieter] In case, like, ’cause they were keeping a good eye on him after he got out. Jonathan : Mm hmm. Resp : So we stopped having parties there, just so that, like, my dad wouldn’t get in trouble for, like, the underage drinking. Jonathan : Okay.

It was often difficult to even see evidence of Jonathan’s ‘footprint’ in his transcripts because he maintained a fairly minimal presence in his interviews. As seen from the illustrations above, Jonathan kept many of his responses or comments to single-word phrases, ‘Okay,’ or ‘Mm hmm,’ or ‘Yeah.’ When Jonathan did offer more extensive commentary, it was often to acknowledge his lack of understanding about a subject matter. His transcripts often included passages like ‘I’ve never been here before’ or ‘I don’t know anything about that .’ It was in these instances that Jonathan’s interviewer characteristic of naive , defined as showing a lack of knowledge or information about respondent, was best illustrated:

Jonathan : Is it like illegal? Or is it like the whole town shuts down, they do racing down the streets? Resp : It’s illegal. Jonathan : Yes? I don’t know – you got tell me these things. I am learning.

These illustrations of naivety were most likely uttered to give the respondent a sense of mastery over the interview topics of discussion, and to elicit the respondent’s interpretations of the events or topics of discussion.

Michelle’s interviewer characteristics illustrated different qualities than either Jonathan or Annie. Michelle’s qualities as an interviewer were coded as being high in affirmation and self-disclosure. Michelle’s transcripts were filled with encouragement and compliments toward her respondents. The following utterances from Michelle illustrate this characteristic:

My goodness, you are smart for a seventh grader … It sounds like you are very helpful … Yes, that is a skill that you have there, that not a lot of people do have …

These instances of affirmation, defined as ‘showing support for a respondent’s idea or belief,’ were found in almost every topic of discussion. Michelle’s transcripts were also filled with instances of self-disclosure. Michelle often used stories of her adolescent son when she was explaining a topic that she wanted to discuss with the adolescent respondents:

Resp : On Friday nights, tonight I’ll go to my gran’s and we usually have a get-together and just play cards, it’s just a thing we do. I like it. It’s just time to spend with family. Michelle : Absolutely. Well, that sounds really nice. And I have a 14-year old in eighth grade. And every Sunday night, we do the game night sort of thing and I look forward to it.

The passages above illustrate three distinct interviewer characteristics: one high in affirmations, energy, interpretations ; another characterized by neutrality and naivety ; and another high in affirmations and self-disclosure . Although all three interviewers demonstrated other instrument qualities in their interviews, the few qualities associated with each interviewer above were found in nearly every topic of discussion (e.g. in almost every conversational topic for Annie, there was evidence of her affirming, energetic , and interpretive interviewer characteristics). These qualities seemed to characterize the unique style of the interviewers rather than reflect reactions to specific contexts. These qualities also persisted in our other interviews not included in these analyses.

Topics of discussion

In the following section, we compare our general interviewer characteristics across the three topics of discussion: rural living, identity and future selves, and risky behavior. We also examine the ways in which our respective interviewer characteristics appeared to influence the conversational space of our interviews. Specifically, we assess how the various interviewer characteristics seemed to facilitate or inhibit respondent disclosure.

Low threat topic: Rural living

Rural living was generally a low-risk topic. In her discussion of this topic with one adolescent, Michelle tended to utilize her self-disclosing characteristic:

Michelle : Are there groups or, like, not cliques, I don’t wanna say, but groups in school; kids who are more like you, who are more into the computers, versus the kids who are huntin’ and fishin’, versus the jocks? I know at my son’s school there are. Resp : There’s not really anybody like that here. Like all of my friends who are like that, they’re in a higher grade than me. But there are some people in my grade where I can relate to in a sense, yeah. Michelle : Okay, so most kids you can relate to are older but most o’ the kids, your peers and your age, are more into the four wheeling and hunting and fishing and kinda stuff like that? That must feel, well, I don’t know, I’m, I’m projecting now unto my own son because sometimes he feels like, that you know, it’s just ridiculous. Resp : Yeah. Michelle : It, eh, ya’ know – and you feel kinda stuck. Resp : Mmm hmm. Michelle : Yeah? Resp : Yeah. I just, like I’ll be sitting there in class and then they’ll start talking about hunting or fishing and I just wanna pull out my hair’ cause I, I don’t know how you can like that stuff. Like it’s just sitting there for a couple of hours doing nothing. Michelle : Right, right.

From the excerpt above, the respondent’s experience with school crowds did not appear to coincide with Michelle’s understanding of her son’s with school crowds. However, Michelle’s self-disclosure seemed to open up the conversational space for the respondent to respond in kind. In the final passage, the respondent offered a different perspective on the nature of crowds in his school.

Conversely, in his conversations with respondents about rural living, Jonathan tended to demonstrate his naive interviewer characteristic:

Jonathan : Is this [name of X town]? Is that where you live now? I don’t even know where I am. Okay, okay. I thought this was [name of Y town] is why, but it’s just the name of the High School. Resp : Well, this is [name of Y town], but [name of X town] is out near. Jonathan : Uh, I’m not, I don’t know this area so well … Resp : And then, like, when you hit, there’s this big huge fire station … and then there’s the [name of X town] Elementary School. And then if you go down there and then you turn and you go up, and then that, like, that whole area in there is [name of X town]. Jonathan : Okay. Resp : And then you go back and where there’s classified as [name of X town], but it’s actually [name of Z town]. Jonathan : Okay.

In response to Jonathan’s naivety (‘I don’t even know where I am’ and ‘I don’t know this area so well’), the respondent appeared to seize the opportunity to teach Jonathan about the area. The respondent did not simply answer Jonathan’s questions; he provided information about which Jonathan did not ask (e.g. the whereabouts of the fire station, elementary school, and nearby towns).

In contrast, Annie’s conversations about rural living were filled with her energetic interviewer characteristic:

Annie : What do you mean by hang out, like what do you ha-, what do you do when you hang out? Resp : We go four wheeler riding. Annie : Oh, four wheeler riding! Cool! Is that dangerous? Is it? Resp : Yeah, and we go up to our camp we built. Um … Annie : That you and your friends built? Resp : Mmm hmm. Annie : Wow! How did you know how to do all that? Resp : Um, my brother and a couple of his friends, that we’re really good friends with, helped us. And like, over the summer we camp out like every night. Like, I’m never home in the summertime, ever. Annie : Wow! Resp : There are three bedrooms and it’s, has a wood burner and it, yeah. Annie : That’s like, that sounds like a real house. That’s amazing. Resp : We built it out of trees. We had our, couple of our friends and our dads help us. We’ve had it for three years and it’s really nice.

After Annie’s lively reply to the respondent’s interest in four wheeler riding (‘Oh, four wheeler riding! Cool!’), the respondent opened up about a different, but related topic: her summer camp house. Moreover, Annie’s energetic comment about the house (‘Wow! How did you know how to do all that?’) seemed to open the conversational space even more, as the respondent explained the ways the house was built, the amenities of the house, and the amount of time she spent in the house during the summer.

Moderate threat topic: Identity and future selves

Conversations about the adolescents’ identity and future selves were considered moderately uncomfortable for adolescents. The interview questions prompted the adolescents to talk about the qualities that described their personal and social identities, along with any hopes and aspirations they had for the future. Although the interview questions were designed to be as unobtrusive as possible, the topic was fairly personal. The interview questions required the adolescent respondent to be introspective with someone with whom they had no personal history:

Jonathan : After you’re all done with school, so you go through and you graduate from a high school. What do you want to do after that? Resp : Go back to Mexico and visit my family, and um get a job. Jonathan : Back in Mexico? Resp : It doesn’t really matter where, but just like get a job. Jonathan : Yes. What kind of job? Resp : Probably like a secretary or whatever job they give me, except prostitute. Jonathan : None a’ that. Is there anything you worry about in that transition of how you’re going to go get a job and what kind of job you’ll get, things like that? Resp : Not really, because like, you just have to like – I dunno, just like – just like – go on with life and whatever happens, just, take it.

Here again, Jonathan’s neutrality was demonstrated not by what he said, but what he did not say. Despite the fact that the adolescent shared a potentially troubling disclosure, that she would consider any job except prostitution, Jonathan kept his personal reactions to a minimum and provided only a short response (i.e. ‘None a’ that’). After this instance of neutrality, Jonathan moved on to a different topic (i.e. asking the respondent if she had any concerns about getting a job in the future), and the respondent moved on, as well, dutifully answering his questions. She provided no more information on her prostitution comment.

In comparison to Jonathan, Michelle and Annie’s utterances in their conversations on identity and future selves were replete with codes for affirmation:

Resp : I wanna be a pediatrician nurse or something. Like, I love kids to death. Like, I’ve, I learned how to change – I’ve been changing diapers – this is no lie – I’ve been changing diapers since I was like seven years old. ‘Cause my mom, step-mom, had a baby before my dad left again, and like I was always changing her diapers and stuff, and like, I babysit constantly. Annie : Aww, I bet you’re really good with kids. Resp : Oh, I’m amazing. Like, there’s this one little boy, like he goes to my church, he’s just like four, and I took him to my house one day and like he asked his mom to buy him a toy at the toy store, I cried, she’s like, she’s like, ‘Aww, I can’t sweetie, I don’t have the money’ and he was crying, he and he’s like ‘All my friends have toys. He was like two and he, like he, like he goes over to this daycare and he’s like ‘All my friends have these toys but I don’t have any.’ Like he had no toys at all and like my mom gave them, handed me a hundred dollars and she’s like ‘Go to, go, go buy toys. We gave him a hundred dollars, like we gave him all this money and they went out and bought like a b-, toys and stuff. It was really nice. Annie : That is, that’s really neat.

Michelle : So the first question that I have here is which of these things that you wrote down are you most proud of? Resp : Well, being helpful. Michelle : How are you helpful? Resp : Well. In school, there are some people that don’t like speak English that well. And I help them by translating. Michelle : Oh okay. Like you are doing for your teacher in there. You are helping do that. So how long have you been bilingual your whole life? Do both of your parents speak Spanish? Resp : Well, yes, they are Mexicans. They barely know English. Michelle : And they barely know English. And when did you come here? Resp : When I was nine months old. Michelle : When you were a baby. And before that you lived where? Resp : In Mexico. Michelle : Mexico. So you are 13, so that was when you were a year old. Okay, got it. Okay, so you learned here. So you speak English better than they do it, sounds like. Okay and then you translate. What’s that like translating for them? Resp : Well, for me it’s like sometimes difficult because I never went to school in Mexico and I know more English than Spanish and when I am translating it’s difficult for me. The big words my parents tell me to try to translate it in English. Michelle : Okay. So you’re doing both ways. You’re doing from English to and from Spanish to English. Both. Does that feel like a lot of responsibility for somebody your age? Resp : Yeah, especially when I got field trips stuff like that. I need to tell my parents, that my parents or if my parents needed something that comes in the mail, may be bills or something like that. Michelle : It sounds like you are very helpful. Who do you want to be when you are out of after high school? Resp : Since I like to help out people a lot, I mean, maybe be a translator and maybe in a hospital or in a school so – Michelle : Yes, that is a skill that you have there, that not a lot of people do have. So that’s – I’m glad you realized that, in terms of that.

Annie’s affirming characteristic could be seen in her affirmation of her respondent’s compassion for children (‘I bet you’re really good with kids’); for Michelle, the characteristic could be seen in her affirmations of her respondent’s willingness to help her parents, teacher, and classmates with their English or Spanish (‘… it sounds like you are very helpful’). Both Michelle and Annie’s affirmation seemed to foster a conversational space that was conducive for uninhibited self-disclosure. In response to Annie’s affirmation about owning a daycare someday, the respondent opened up to talk about her talents in working with children, and her compassion for the children in her community who were less fortunate than she. In response to Michelle’s affirmations about the responsibilities of translating for so many people, the respondent expounded on the difficulties of such a responsibility, and the tasks she must perform for various people (e.g. helping her classmates on field trips, assisting her parents with bills).

High threat topic: Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use

Discussions about alcohol, tobacco, and other drug usage (ATOD) were considered highly sensitive topics of discussion, as adolescents were often encouraged to disclose information about their own or their peers’ drug use. Although the respondents were continually reassured that the information they provided was confidential, disclosing information about illegal activity to a stranger was likely a highly sensitive activity. When discussing ATOD with adolescents, each interviewer utilized a different interviewer characteristic. Jonathan’s dominant characteristic when discussing this topic was neutrality :

Resp : Her parents’, like, bar. Like, they own this big, huge bar. And then, like, in the back where the kids can go. Jonathan : Oh, okay. Resp : And her parents don’t really care if you drink. Jonathan : Oh, okay. Resp : Just as long as you do it in the bar. You don’t just go outside, or you don’t tell your parents. Jonathan : Okay. Resp : She doesn’t really know that we drink, but we usually crash in the van, in the RV. Jonathan : Uh huh. Resp : … or out in the yard. And we only do the RV in the summer or in the spring. And then at my other friend’s house who has the bar, we stay at, we do the, we have parties there all the time. Jonathan : Mm hmm. Resp : Just cause her parents don’t care. Jonathan : Yeah.

Even in the midst of some fairly controversial topics of discussion (e.g. underage binge drinking), Jonathan’s neutral characteristic was consistently demonstrated in his calm, even responses (‘okay,’ ‘uh huh’). These neutral responses seemed to provide an unobtrusive backdrop for the respondent to discuss her experiences. Indeed, Jonathan did not even need to ask any questions to the respondent. With minimal prompting, the respondent shared her story.

In comparison to Jonathan, when discussing ATOD, Annie’s approach was coded as interpretive ; she often interjected commentary about the respondents’ stories of risky behavior:

Annie : Do you think that he drinks beer, or does chew or smokes cigarettes? Resp : He probably does … Annie : Um, and so when he offered this to you, were you, were you uncomfortable? Like, did you feel kind of weird? Resp : Mm hmm. Annie : Um, and, and maybe that boy’s brother – like, that guy’s brother – he might smoke or drink from time to time, but, um, that’s about it? Resp : Mm hmm. Annie : It doesn’t seem like too many kids around here do that stuff. Resp : Not as I know.

Annie’s interpretive characteristic stands in stark contrast to Jonathan’s neutral characteristic. Whereas Jonathan’s responses were short and dispassionate, Annie’s responses were somewhat opinionated. These interpretive comments did not seem to generate a conversational space conducive for the respondent’s continued disclosure. Indeed, the transcript above shows that most of the commentary came from Annie, not the respondent.

In discussions on risky behavior, Michelle’s self-disclosing characteristic was evidenced by her stories of her 14-year-old son, and appeared to serve as a point of identification with respondents:

Resp : My parents get mad because I listen to music a lot and I don’t do anything than watch TV. Just hang out with my friends. Michelle : Then your parents get mad because that’s all you do. You know but the good thing about me is I’m not your parent and I don’t care. So I just want to know what kids are doing. It’s, you know, I have an eighth grader actually he’s 14. And that’s exactly what he does. And in the winter it stinks, though you are right because what else is there to do? You know it’s the question, um any way, okay. So, do you know my question to you is, and again, this is purely confidential, we don’t know names we don’t want names or anything. Has anybody ever offered you any alcohol or cigarettes or marijuana or any of those? And have you said yes or no to that? Resp : Yes, they offered me and I’d always told them ‘no’ and what it does. Michelle : Okay, so tell me … pretend that we’re shooting this video. Okay tell me the who when what where why and how. Right? Where were you, not who, not a name. But was it a friend who was older, younger, male, female? That kind of thing. Tell me the story of at least one of these offers. Resp : Okay. I was hanging out with my friends, just walking around, and there is this bigger kid that we know and he was joined by these smokers, and they would always, he would always tell me never to smoke and we just saw him … And then he offered us and we said no. This is not good for you and he plays soccer and he is not really good at soccer.

Michelle’s self-disclosure about her son experiencing similar challenges as the respondent was initially met by the respondent with a short response. However, Michelle’s subsequent question, framed as a hypothetical task (‘ pretend that we’re shooting this video ’), seemed to create an opening in the conversational space for the respondent to share a story.

Summary and discussion

In looking closely at the different practices we employed as interviewers, we were able to identify a variety of distinguishing features that seemed to characterize each of us uniquely. If we were characters in a novel or play, Annie’s character name would be energy , Jonathan’s neutrality , and Michelle’s self-disclosure . Across the different conversation topics in the interview, from low to high risk, these interviewer characteristics functioned differently in eliciting detail from adolescent respondents.

When the adolescents and researchers discussed the low-risk topic of rural living, the three interviewer characteristics (i.e. energy, neutrality, or self-disclosure) generated sufficiently detailed responses from the respondents. Variance across interviewers did not seem to have much impact on the quality of the responses obtained from the adolescent participants. This may have been due, in part, to the low-risk nature of the topic. This is a topic many adolescents can talk easily about, have talked about with others, and do not perceive the information they share as particularly threatening.

When the topic was moderately risky, as was the topic of identities and future selves, Jonathan’s neutral approach contrasted with Michelle and Annie’s affirming approach. Although neutrality appeared somewhat effective in facilitating an open conversational space for respondents, the affirming interviewer characteristic seemed to offer a more nurturing environment for conversation. Rich, detailed disclosures from adolescents about their identities occurred more often when the interviewer utilized an affirming approach and set a tone of acceptance for the respondents. Affirmation may be particularly important with adolescents, since adolescence is a notoriously vulnerable time in development.

When discussing a high risk topic such as alcohol and other drug use, Annie’s interpretive approach appeared to be the least effective in providing a satisfying conversational space for respondents. Jonathan’s neutral characteristic and Michelle’s self-disclosing characteristic appeared to elicit detailed information from their respondents, while Annie’s interpretive characteristic only served to inhibit her respondent’s stories. Michelle’s disclosures, while also interpretive, did not appear to limit responses from the adolescents. Couching Michelle’s interpretive language within a personal narrative may have mitigated its presence, although it still presented leading information. Hence, it could be argued that neutrality (displayed in this context by Jonathan) may be most effective when discussing high risk topics, because this neutrality provides the respondents with the most freedom to disclose what they want and how they want.

An important factor to note in this discussion is that of gender. While we did not explicitly study the role of gender in our analyses, our interviewing styles were rooted in traditional gender norms: Jonathan’s minimalist and neutral styles could be characterized as stereotypically masculine, and Annie and Michelle’s effusive and affirming interviewing styles could be characterized as traditionally feminine. These qualities suggest that interviewing styles cannot be disentangled from one’s gender, and that conversational spaces are influenced by more than simply an interviewer’s words. To this end, practices of reflexivity must acknowledge the implications of what an interviewer says and how it is said, as well as the ways in which those utterances are connected to one’s gender.

Although this study provides some intriguing findings, it was limited in a variety of ways. For one, we did not employ detailed conversation analysis procedures on each individual utterance in the interview. And despite the range of conversational segments in the interviews (i.e. introductions, research explanations, establishing rapport, soliciting honesty and openness, a period of questions and answers on six core topics, summarizing the discussion, and closings), for the purposes of this study, we elected to limit our analysis specifically to three topics in the question and answer segment. Nor did we examine other conversational features, such as the role of silence or turn-taking. Conversational features such as those, while certainly worth our attention, were beyond the scope of this exercise.

Lessons learned

Learning about interviewing and doing interviews are different tasks. This lesson was highly relevant for us when conducting this study. Even though we were all trained in interviewing, we still found ourselves displaying the classic mistakes of a novice researcher: asking long, complicated questions, posturing closed yes-or-no questions, and leading respondents ( deMarrais, 2004 ). While humbling, these mistakes forced us to reflect on how to develop our skills and have guided our interviewing work since that time. Indeed, the kind of self-reflexivity involved in conducting an analysis of your own interviews, and then comparing and contrasting them with others, could be beneficial for individual interviewers as they are honing their craft, and QRTs desiring to identify unique characteristics of their resident interviewers.

In considering our findings, we agree that researchers are indeed the ‘instruments’ in qualitative interview research. After all, it is through the researcher’s facilitative interaction that a conversational space is created where respondents share rich information about their lives. Yet, we argue that qualitative researchers are differently calibrated instruments.

In QRTs, in particular, the goal is often to calibrate all instruments to one standard of accuracy. However, the results of this study illustrate that variation in interviewer characteristics may be a benefit rather than a detriment to team-based qualitative inquiry. All interviewers in this study were effective in conducting engaging conversations with participants and eliciting information, but we did these things employing different practices, and sometimes to different ends. Each interviewer demonstrated a relatively consistent interviewer style across all of his or her interviews – Jonathan was consistently neutral, Michelle consistently self-disclosive, and Annie consistently energetic. This finding leads us to suggest that QRTs might benefit from learning what ‘natural style’ characterizes a possible interviewer and then staffing their teams with interviewers who have complementary styles. Interviewers may then be assigned interview tasks commensurate with their strengths. For example, our team needed to learn both about rural identity and about alcohol and drug use, so Michelle and Annie could have been assigned to interview respondents about rural identity (a ‘safe’ topic) and future selves (a moderately risky topic), which both fit our energetic style. This approach could have helped to engage participants in the research and establish rapport with them among the research team. Then, Jonathan could be assigned to the task of summarizing the information learned about the less risky topics and bringing that information into a second interview to pursue the high risk topic of drug use, implementing his neutral style for a non-evaluative conversational space. This suggestion is founded on a premise similar to utilizing information from personality inventories (e.g. Myers Briggs) to establish work teams in organizations ( Furlow, 2000 ).

Since many interviews must occur during a single visit, however, interviewer ‘profiling’ may not be realistic for QRTs. Another suggestion would be to audio-record interview trainees in mock interviews, share those recordings among the team, then devote some time for team members to offer commentary on (a) the ways in which their teammates embodied similar or different instruments in their interviews and (b) how those instruments seemed to create different conversational spaces. This process need not involve detailed conversation analysis tools; nor should it be formal or performance-based. Instead, it should be congenial and constructive, driven by efforts to respect interviewer flexibility while maintaining fidelity to the research approach. These recommendations are in line with calls issued by Mallozzi (2009) and Miller-Day et al. (2009) , who argued that consistency efforts be focused on research procedures (e.g. securing consent, managing empirical materials) and not on standardizing interviewer characteristics.

In carrying out these recommendations, more research will be needed to understand the complexities of how and under what conditions interviewer characteristics may impact respondent responses. More research will also be needed on the ways QRT practices may change if reflexivity was incorporated at other stages of the process (e.g. forming research questions and gaining access). Yet this study provides a running start toward that end. Through our exercise, we call for greater interviewer reflexivity and acknowledge that researchers are the primary instruments in qualitative interview studies – but differentially calibrated instruments. We disagree with claims that interviewers in qualitative research teams should receive the same standard training with an eye toward producing consistent interview strategies ( Bergman and Coxon, 2005 ) and argue, instead, that diversity of approaches among members of a research team has the potential to strengthen the team through complementarity.

Acknowledgments

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Biographies

Annie Pezalla is the Academic Skills Director at Walden University. Her research addresses identity development across adolescence and young adulthood.

Jonathan Pettigrew is a research analyst and project coordinator for the Drug Resistance Strategies project at Penn State University. His research examines how interpersonal and family interactions correspond with adolescent health.

Michelle Miller-Day is an Associate Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at the Pennsylvania State University. She is the Founding Director of the Penn State Qualitative Research Interest Group, an interdisciplinary community of researchers involved in and supporting qualitative inquiry at Penn State University. Her research addresses human communication and health, including areas such as substance use prevention, suicide, and families and mental health. Her community-embedded research has involved numerous creative projects to translate research findings into social change. For the past 20 years she has served as the principal qualitative methodologist for a National Institute on Drug Abuse line of research.

Contributor Information

Anne E Pezalla, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Jonathan Pettigrew, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

Michelle Miller-Day, Pennsylvania State University, USA.

• Abell J, Locke A, Condor S, Gibson S, Stevenson C. Trying similarity, doing difference: the role of interviewer self-disclosure in interview talk with young people. Qualitative Research. 2006; 6 (2):221–244. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alberts JK, Miller-Rassulo M, Hecht ML. A typology of drug resistance strategies. Journal of Applied Communication Research. 1991; 19 :129–151. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barry CA, Britten N, Barber N, Bradley C, Stevenson F. Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 1999; 9 (1):26–44. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baptiste I. Qualitative data analysis: common phases, strategic differences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 2001; 2 (3):Art. 22. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/965/2106 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Baxter LA, Babbie ER. The Basics of Communication Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bergman MM, Coxon APM. The quality in qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 2005; 6 (2):Art. 34. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-34-e.htm . [ Google Scholar ]
• Botvin GJ, Griffin KW, Diaz T, Scheier LM, Williams C, Epstein JA. Preventing illicit drug use in adolescents: long-term follow-up data from a randomized control trial of a school population. Addictive Behavior. 2000; 5 :769–774. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cassell C. Creating the interviewer: identity work in the management research process. Qualitative Research. 2005; 5 (2):167–179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J, Morse JM. The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry. 2003; 9 (3):335–354. [ Google Scholar ]
• deMarrais K. Qualitative interview studies: learning through experience. In: deMarrais K, Lapan S, editors. Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2004. pp. 51–68. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ellis C, Berger L. Their story/my story/our story: including the researcher’s experience in interview research. In: Holstein JA, Gubrium JF, editors. Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2003. pp. 467–493. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson DL, Tetler S, Baltzer K. Meeting the challenges of multi-site, multi-researcher interpretivist research. 2009 Available at: http://www.dpu.dk/Everest/Publications .
• Fernald DH, Duclos CW. Enhance your team-based qualitative research. Annals of Family Medicine. 2005; 3 :360–364. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Furlow L. Job profiling: building a winning team using behavioral assessment. Journal of Nursing Administration. 2000; 30 (3):107–111. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Graham H. Do her answers fit his questions? Women and the survey method. In: Gamarnikow E, Morgan D, Purvis J, Taylorson D, editors. The Public and the Private. London: Heinemann; 1983. pp. 132–147. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba EG, Lincoln YS. The evaluator as instrument. In: Guba EG, Lincoln YS, editors. Effective Evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1981. pp. 128–152. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guest G, MacQueen KM, editors. Handbook for Team-based Qualitative Research. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammersley M, Atkinson P. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. 2. New York: Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Herriott RE, Firestone WA. Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher. 1983; 12 (2):14–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. The Active Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janesick VJ. Stretching Exercises for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Janesick VJ. Intuition and creativity: a pas de deux for qualitative researchers. Qualitative Inquiry. 2001; 7 (5):531–540. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacQueen KM, McLellan E, Kay K, Milstein B. Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. Cultural Anthropology Methods. 1999; 10 :31–36. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mallozzi CA. Voicing the interview: a researcher’s exploration on a platform of empathy. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (6):1042–1060. [ Google Scholar ]
• Matteson SM, Lincoln YS. Using multiple interviewers in qualitative research studies: the influence of ethic of care behaviors in research interview settings. Qualitative Inquiry. 2009; 15 (8):659–674. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell JA. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam SB. Qualitative Research in Practice: Examples for Discussion and Analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller-Day M, Pezalla A, Pettigrew J, Krieger J, Colby M, Hecht ML. The possibilities and pitfalls of team-based qualitative research. Paper presented at the Qualitative Inquiry in the Caribbean International Conference; October; Kingston 5, Jamaica. 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• National Center for Education Statistics. Identification of rural locales. n.d Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp .
• Oakley A. Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms? In: Roberts H, editor. Doing Feminist Research. New York: Routledge; 1981. pp. 30–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ohio Department of Education. Data for free and reduced price meal eligibility (MR81) 2010 Available at: http://education.ohio.gov/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=828&ContentID=13197&Content=79922 .
• Olesen V, Droes N, Hatton D, Chico N, Schatzman L. Analyzing together: recollections of a team approach. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analyzing Qualitative Data. New York: Routledge; 1994. pp. 111–128. [ Google Scholar ]
• Owens EO. Conversational space and participant shame in interviewing. Qualitative Inquiry. 2006; 12 (6):1160–1179. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pillow WS. Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education. 2003; 16 :175–196. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pitts M, Miller-Day M. Upward turning points and positive rapport development across time in researcher-participant relationships. Qualitative Research. 2007; 7 :177–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rogers-Dillon RH. Hierarchical qualitative research teams: refining the methodology. Qualitative Research. 2005; 5 (4):437–454. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubin HJ, Rubin IS. Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanders CB, Cuneo CJ. Social reliability in qualitative team research. Sociology. 2010; 44 (2):325–343. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer E, Frankel M, Glassman MB. The effect of interviewer characteristics and expectations on response. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1983; 47 :68–83. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stack CB. Writing ethnography: feminist critical practice. In: Wolf DL, editor. Feminist Dilemmas in Fieldwork. New York: Westview Press; 1995. pp. 1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tanggaard L. The research interview as discourses crossing swords: the researcher and apprentice on crossing roads. Qualitative Inquiry. 2007; 13 :160–176. [ Google Scholar ]
• Treloar C, Graham IE. Multidisciplinary cross-national studies: a commentary on issues of collaboration, methodology, analysis, and publication. Qualitative Health Research. 2003; 13 (7):924–932. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turato ER. Qualitative and quantitative methods in health: definitions, differences and research subjects. Revista de Saude Publica. 2005; 39 (3):507–514. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• United States Agency for International Development’s Center for Development Information and Evaluation. Conducting Key Informant Interviews. (Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS) 1996 Available at: http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABS541.pdf .
• Watts JH. Emotion, empathy and exit: reflections on doing ethnographic qualitative research on sensitive topics. Medical Sociology Online. 2008; 3 (2):3–14. [ Google Scholar ]

Community Blog

Keep up-to-date on postgraduate related issues with our quick reads written by students, postdocs, professors and industry leaders.

What is a Research Instrument?

• By DiscoverPhDs
• October 9, 2020

The term research instrument refers to any tool that you may use to collect or obtain data, measure data and analyse data that is relevant to the subject of your research.

Research instruments are often used in the fields of social sciences and health sciences. These tools can also be found within education that relates to patients, staff, teachers and students.

The format of a research instrument may consist of questionnaires, surveys, interviews, checklists or simple tests. The choice of which specific research instrument tool to use will be decided on the by the researcher. It will also be strongly related to the actual methods that will be used in the specific study.

What Makes a Good Research Instrument?

A good research instrument is one that has been validated and has proven reliability. It should be one that can collect data in a way that’s appropriate to the research question being asked.

The research instrument must be able to assist in answering the research aims , objectives and research questions, as well as prove or disprove the hypothesis of the study.

It should not have any bias in the way that data is collect and it should be clear as to how the research instrument should be used appropriately.

What are the Different Types of Interview Research Instruments?

The general format of an interview is where the interviewer asks the interviewee to answer a set of questions which are normally asked and answered verbally. There are several different types of interview research instruments that may exist.

• A structural interview may be used in which there are a specific number of questions that are formally asked of the interviewee and their responses recorded using a systematic and standard methodology.
• An unstructured interview on the other hand may still be based on the same general theme of questions but here the person asking the questions (the interviewer) may change the order the questions are asked in and the specific way in which they’re asked.
• A focus interview is one in which the interviewer will adapt their line or content of questioning based on the responses from the interviewee.
• A focus group interview is one in which a group of volunteers or interviewees are asked questions to understand their opinion or thoughts on a specific subject.
• A non-directive interview is one in which there are no specific questions agreed upon but instead the format is open-ended and more reactionary in the discussion between interviewer and interviewee.

What are the Different Types of Observation Research Instruments?

An observation research instrument is one in which a researcher makes observations and records of the behaviour of individuals. There are several different types.

Structured observations occur when the study is performed at a predetermined location and time, in which the volunteers or study participants are observed used standardised methods.

Naturalistic observations are focused on volunteers or participants being in more natural environments in which their reactions and behaviour are also more natural or spontaneous.

A participant observation occurs when the person conducting the research actively becomes part of the group of volunteers or participants that he or she is researching.

Final Comments

The types of research instruments will depend on the format of the research study being performed: qualitative, quantitative or a mixed methodology. You may for example utilise questionnaires when a study is more qualitative or use a scoring scale in more quantitative studies.

A well written figure legend will explain exactly what a figure means without having to refer to the main text. Our guide explains how to write one.

This post explains where and how to write the list of figures in your thesis or dissertation.

If you’re about to sit your PhD viva, make sure you don’t miss out on these 5 great tips to help you prepare.

Join thousands of other students and stay up to date with the latest PhD programmes, funding opportunities and advice.

Browse PhDs Now

This article will answer common questions about the PhD synopsis, give guidance on how to write one, and provide my thoughts on samples.

In this post you’ll learn what the significance of the study means, why it’s important, where and how to write one in your paper or thesis with an example.

Dr Ilesanmi has a PhD in Applied Biochemistry from the Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria. He is now a lecturer in the Department of Biochemistry at the Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.

Islam is in the final year of his Physics PhD program at Washington State University in the field of particle cosmology. His research is on the Possible Connections Between Inflaton and Dark Energy Within An Oscillating Reheating Framework.

Join Thousands of Students

• Research Methods
• Post last modified: 26 August 2021
• Reading time: 36 mins read
• Post category: Research Methodology

4 Research Methods

4 Major Research Methods are:

Observations

Schedule and questionnaire, case study method.

Table of Content

• 1.1.1 Types of Interview
• 1.1.2 Features of Interviews
• 1.1.3 Essentials for an Effective Interview
• 1.1.4 Advantages of Interviews
• 1.1.5 Disadvantages of Interviews
• 1.1.6 Interview Process
• 1.1.7 Problems Faced in an Interview
• 1.2.1 Characteristics of Observation Method
• 1.2.2 Types of Observation
• 1.2.3 Prerequisites of Observation
• 1.2.4 Advantages of observations
• 1.2.5 Disadvantages of observations
• 1.2.6 Use of observation in business research
• 1.3.1 Importance of questionnaires
• 1.3.2 Types of Questionnaire
• 1.3.3 Advantages of Questionnaires
• 1.3.4 Disadvantages of Questionnaires
• 1.3.5 Preparation of an Effective Questionnaire
• 1.3.6 Difference between schedule and questionnaire
• 1.4.1 Assumptions of case study method
• 1.4.2 Advantages of Case Study Method
• 1.4.3 Disadvantages of Case Study Method
• 1.4.4 Case study as a method of business research

Interviewing is a very effective method of data collection. It is a systematic and objective conversation between an investigator and respondent for collecting relevant data for a specific research study. Along with conversation, learning about the gestures, facial expressions and environmental conditions of a respondent are also very important.

Generally, interview collects a wide range of data from factual demographic data to highly personal and intimate information relating to a person’s opinions, attitudes, values and beliefs, past experience and future intentions.

The interview method is very important in the collection of data from the respondent who is less educated or illiterate. Personal interview is more feasible when the area covered for survey is compact. Probing is a very important part of an interview.

Types of Interview

The following are the various types of interviews:

Structured or directive interview

In this type of interview, the investigator goes to the respondent with a detailed schedule. Some questions in same sequence are asked from all respondents.

Unstructured or non-directive interview

In this type of interview, the respondent is encouraged to give his honest opinion on a given topic without or with minimum help from others.

Focused interview

This is a semi-structured interview where the respondent shares the effect of the experience to the given conditions with the researcher or investigator. It is conducted with those respondents only who have prior experience of conditions given by the investigator.

Analysis of the attitude, emotional feelings for the situations under study is main purpose behind conducting these interviews. A set of fix questions may not be required in this interview but a relevant topic is required which is known to the respondent.

Clinical interview

While a focussed interview is concerned with effects of specific experience, clinical interviews are concerned with broad underlying feelings or motivations or the course of the individual’s life experiences with reference to the research study. It encourages the interviewee to share his experience freely.

Depth interview

To analyse or study the respondent’s emotions, opinions, etc., depth interviews are conducted. This kind of interview aims to collect intensive data about individuals, especially their opinions.

It is a lengthy process to get unbiased data from the respondent. Interviewers should avoid advising or showing this agreement. Instead, the investigator has to motivate the respondent to answer the questions.

Features of Interviews

The following are some of the features of interviews

• The interviewer and the respondent are the participants in any interview. They both are unknown to each other and so it is important for an interviewer to introduce himself first to the respondent.
• An interview has a beginning and a termination point in the relationship between the participants.
• Interview is not a mere casual conversational exchange. It has a specific purpose of collecting data which is relevant to the study.
• Interview is a mode of obtaining a verbal response to questions to put verbally. It is not always face to face.
• Success of interview depends on the interviewer and respondent and how they perceive each other.
• It is not a standardized process.

Essentials for an Effective Interview

The following are the requirements for a successful interview:

• Data availability : The respondent should have complete knowledge of the information required for specific study.
• Role perception : The interviewer and the respondent should be aware of their roles in the interview process. The respondent should be clear about the topic or questions which have to be answered by him. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the interviewer to make the respondent comfortable by introducing himself first. The investigator should not affect the interview situation through subjective attitude and argumentation.
• Respondent’s motivation : The respondent can hesitate to answer the questions. In this case, the approach and skills of the interviewer are very important as he has to motivate the respondent to answer or express himself.

Advantages of Interviews

The following are the advantages of the interview method:

• In-depth and detailed information is collected.
• The interviewer tries to improve the responses and quality of data received.
• He can control the conditions in favour of the research study.
• Interviews help in gathering supplementary information which can be helpful to the study.
• Interviews use special scoring devices, visuals and materials to improve the quality of data or information collected.
• Interviews use observation and probing by the interviewer to see the accuracy and dependability of given data by the respondent.
• Interviews are flexible in nature.

Disadvantages of Interviews

The following are the disadvantages of interviews:

• Interviews consume more time and cost.
• The respondent’s responses can be affected by the way the interviewer asks the questions.
• The respondent may refuse to answer some personal questions which are relevant to the study.
• Recording and coding of data during the interview process may sometimes be difficult for the interviewer.
• The interviewer may not have good communication or interactive skills.

Interview Process

The following are the stages in an interview process:

Preparation

The interviewer needs to make certain preparations to make an interview successful. The interviewer should keep all the copies of the schedule or guide ready. They need to prepare the lists of respondents with their addresses, contact number and meeting time.

They should prepare themselves with all the approaches and skills required to conduct an interview. They should prepare themselves to face all adverse situations during the interview. If the interviewer is not doing such planning, they can fail to collect the right information from respondent.

Introduction

The interviewer is not known to the respondent. Therefore, the interviewer must introduce himself first to every respondent. In the introduction, the interviewer should tell about himself, his organization details and the purpose of his visit.

If the interviewer knows someone who the respondent is familiar with, then he can use that person’s reference to make the respondent more comfortable. The following are some steps which help in motivating the respondent:

• The interviewer should introduce himself with a smiling face and always greet the respondent.
• He should identify and call the respondent by name.
• He must describe how the respondent is selected.
• He should explain the purpose and usefulness of the study.
• He should focus on the value of the respondent’s cooperation.

Developing report

It is important for an interviewer to develop a rapport with the respondent before starting the interview. By doing this, a cordial relationship is established between them. It helps the interviewer understand the inherent nature of the respondent which helps in building a rapport and the discussion can be started with some general topic or with the help of a person who is commonly known to both of them.

Carrying the interview forward

After establishing a rapport, the skills of the interviewer are required to carry the interview forward. The following are some guidelines that should be followed:

• Start the interview in an informal and natural manner.
• Ask all the questions in the same sequence as in the schedule.
• Do not take an answer for granted. It is not necessary that an interviewee will know all answers or will give all answers. The interviewer has to create interest for answering questions.
• The objective of the question should be known to the interviewer to ensure that the correct information is collected for research study.
• Explain the question if it has not been understood properly by the respondent.
• Listen to the respondent carefully with patience.
• Never argue with the respondent.
• Show your concern and interest in the information given by the respondent.
• Do not express your own opinion for answers of any question in the schedule.
• Continue to motivate the respondent.
• If the respondent is unable to frame the right answer, the interviewer should help him by providing alternate questions.
• Ensure that the conversation does not go off track.
• If the respondent is unable to answer a particular question due to some reasons, drop the question at that moment. This question can be asked indirectly later on.

Recording the interview

Responses should be recorded in the same sequence as they are given by the respondent. The response should be recorded at the same time as it is generated. It may be very difficult to remember all the responses later for recording them.

Recording can be done in writing but there may be some problems if the writing skills of an interviewer are not good. Hence, the use of electronic devices like tape recorders can help in this purpose. The interviewer should also record all his probes and other comments on the schedule, but they should be in brackets to ensure that they are set off from response.

Closing the interview

After the interview is over, the interviewer must thank the respondent for his cooperation. He must collect all the papers before leaving the respondent. If the respondent wants to know the result of the survey, the interviewer must ensure that the results are mailed to him when they are ready.

At the end, the interviewer must edit the schedule to check that all the questions have been asked and recorded. Also, abbreviations in recording should be replaced by full words.

Problems Faced in an Interview

The following are some of the main problems faced in an interview:

Inadequate response

Kahn and Cannel laid down five principal symptoms of inadequate response. They are given as follows:

• Partial response in which the respondent gives a relevant but incomplete answer.
• Non-response in which the respondent remains silent or refuses to answer the questions.
• Irrelevant response in which the respondent’s answer is not relevant to the question asked.
• Inaccurate response in which the reply is biased.
• Verbalized response problem which arises because of the respondent’s failure to understand the question.

Interviewer’s biasness, refusal, incapability to understand questions

An interviewer can affect the performance of an interview with his own responses and suggestions. Such biasing factors can never be overcome fully, but their effect can be reduced by training and development techniques.

Non response

Some respondents out of the total respondents fail to respond to the schedule. The reasons for this non response can be non availability, refusal, incapability to understand questions, etc.

Non availability

Some respondents are not available at their places at the time of call. This could be because of odd timings or working hours.

Some respondents refuse to answer the questions. There can be many reasons for this, such as language, odd hours, sickness, no interest in such studies, etc.

Inaccessibility

Some respondents can be inaccessible because of various reasons such as migration, touring job, etc.

Observation can be defined as viewing or seeing. Observation means specific viewing with the purpose of gathering the data for a specific research study. Observation is a classical method of scientific study. It is very important in any research study as it is an effective method for data collection.

Characteristics of Observation Method

The following are the characteristics of the observation method of data collection:

• Physical and mental activity : Eyes observe so many things in our surroundings but our focus or attention is only on data which is relevant to research study.
• Observation is selective : It is very difficult for a researcher to observe everything in his surroundings. He only observes the data which is purposive for his research study and meets with the scope of his study. The researcher ignores all the data which is not relevant to the study.
• Observation is purposive and not casual : Observation is purposive as it is relevant to a particular study. The purpose of observation is to collect data for the research study. It focusses on human behaviour which occurs in a social phenomenon. It analyses the relationship of different variables in a specific context.
• Accuracy and standardization : Observation of pertinent data should be accurate and standardized for its applications.

Types of Observation

Different concepts define the classification of observations.

With respect to an investigator’s role, observation may be:

Participant observation

Non-participant observation

With respect to the method of observation, it can be classified into the following:

Direct observation

Indirect observation

With reference to the control on the system to be observed, observation can be classified into the following:

Controlled observation

Uncontrolled observation

In participant type of observation, the observer is an active participant of the group or process. He participates as well as observes as a part of a phenomenon;

For example, to study the behaviour of management students towards studying and understanding marketing management, the observer or researcher has to participate in the discussion with students without telling them about the observation or purpose. When respondents are unaware of observations, then only their natural interest can be studied.

In non-participant observation, the observer does not participate in the group process. He acknowledges the behaviour of the group without telling the respondents. It requires a lot of skills to record observations in an unnoticeable manner.

In direct observation, the observer and researcher personally observe all the happenings of a process or an event when the event is happening. In this method, the observer records all the relevant aspects of an event which are necessary for study.

He is free to change the locations and focus of the observation. One major limitation of the method is that the observer may not be able to cover all relevant events when they are happening.

Physical presence of an observer is not required and recording is done with the help of mechanical, photographic or electronic devices;

For example, close circuit TV (CCTV) cameras are used in many showrooms to observe the behaviour of customers. It provides a permanent record for an analysis of different aspects of the event.

All observations are done under pre-specified conditions over extrinsic and intrinsic variables by adopting experimental design and systematically recording observations. Controlled observations are carried out either in the laboratory or the field.

There is no control over extrinsic and intrinsic variables. It is mainly used for descriptive research. Participant observation is a typical uncontrolled one.

Prerequisites of Observation

The following are the prerequisites of observation:

• The conditions of observation must provide accurate results. An observer should be in a position to observe the object clearly.
• The right number of respondents should be selected as the sample size for the observation to produce the desired results.
• Accurate and complete recording of an event.
• If it is possible, two separate observers and sets of instruments can be used in all or some observations. Then the result can be compared to measure accuracy and completeness.

Advantages of observations

The following are the advantages of observations:

• It ensures the study of behaviour in accordance with the occurrence of events. The observer does not ask anything from the representatives, he just watches the doing and saying of the sample.
• The data collected by observation defines the observed phenomenon as they occur in their natural settings.
• When an object is not able to define the meaning of its behaviour, observation is best method for analysis; for example, animals, birds and children.
• Observation covers the entire happenings of an event.
• Observation is less biased as compared to questioning.
• It is easier to conduct disguised observation studies as opposed to disguised questioning.
• The use of mechanical devices can generate accurate results.

Disadvantages of observations

The following are the limitations of observation:

• Past studies and events are of no use to observation. For these events and study, one has to go through narrations, people and documents.
• It is difficult to understand attitudes with the help of observation.
• Observations cannot be performed by the choice of the observer. He has to wait for an event to occur.
• It is difficult to predict when and where the event will occur. Thus, it may not be possible for an observer to reach in every event.
• Observation requires more time and money.

Use of observation in business research

Observation is very useful in the following business research purposes:

• Buying behaviour of customer, lifestyles, customs, interpersonal relations, group dynamics, leadership styles, managerial style and actions.
• Physical characteristics of inanimate things like houses, factories, stores, etc.
• Movements in a production plant.
• Flow of traffic, crowd and parking on road.

Primary data can be collected with the help of emails and surveys. The respondents receive the questionnaires from the researcher and are asked to fill them completely and return them to the researcher. It can be performed only when the respondents are educated.

The mail questionnaire should be simple and easy to understand so that the respondents can answer all questions easily. In mail questionnaires, all the answers have to be given and recorded by the respondents and not by the researcher or investigator, as in the case of the personal interview method. There is no face-to-face interaction between the investigator and respondent and so the respondent is free to give answers of his own choice.

Importance of questionnaires

A questionnaire is a very effective method as well as research tool in any research study. It ensures the collection of a diversified and wide range of scientific data to complete the research objectives. The questionnaire provides all the inputs in the form of relevant data to all statistical methods used in a research study.

Types of Questionnaire

The following are the various categories of questionnaires:

• Structured or standard questionnaire Structured or standard questionnaires contain predefined questions in order to collect the required data for research study. These questions are the same for all the respondents. Questions are in the same language and in the same order for all the respondents.
• Unstructured questionnaire In unstructured questionnaires, the respondent has the freedom

Process of Data Collection

The researcher prepares the mailing list by collecting the addresses of all the respondents with the help of primary and secondary sources of data. A covering letter must accompany every questionnaire, indicating the purpose and importance of the research and importance of cooperation of the respondent for the success of the research study.

Advantages of Questionnaires

The following are the advantages of questionnaires:

• Wide reach and extensive coverage
• Easy to contact the person who is busy
• Respondent’s convenience in completion of questionnaire
• More impersonal, provides more anonymity
• No interviewer’s biasness

Disadvantages of Questionnaires

The following are the disadvantages of questionnaires:

• Low response by respondent
• Low scope in many societies where literary level is low
• More time requirement

Preparation of an Effective Questionnaire

While preparing a questionnaire, the researcher must focus on some key parameters to prepare it. These key parameters are as follows:

• Proper use of open and close probe
• Proper sequence of questions
• Use of simple language
• Asking no personal question in which the respondent is hesitating to answer
• Should not be time consuming
• Use of control questions indicating reliability of the respondent

Collecting Data through Schedule

This method is very similar to the collection of data through questionnaires. The only difference is that in schedule, enumerators are appointed. These enumerators go to the respondents, ask the stated questions in the same sequence as the schedule and record the reply of respondents.

Schedules may be given to the respondents and the enumerators should help them solve the problems faced while answering the question in the given schedule. Thus, enumerator selection is very important in data collection through schedules.

Difference between schedule and questionnaire

Both questionnaire and schedule are popular methods of data collection. The following are the main differences between questionnaire and schedule:

• A questionnaire is generally sent to the respondents through mail, but in case of schedule, it is sent through enumerators.
• Questionnaires are relatively cheaper mediums of data collection as compared to schedules. In the case of questionnaires, the cost is incurred in preparing it and mailing it to respondent, while in schedule, more money is required for hiring enumerators, training them and incurring their field expenses.
• The response rate in questionnaires is low as many people return it without filling. On the other hand, the response rate in schedules is high because they are filled by enumerators.
• In collecting data through questionnaires, the identity of the respondent may not be known, but this is not the case when it comes to schedules.
• Data collection through questionnaires requires a lot of time, which is comparatively very less in case of schedules.
• Generally, there is no personal contact in case of questionnaires, but in schedules, personal contact is always there.
• The literacy level of the respondent is very important while filling questionnaires, but in schedules, the literacy level of the respondent is not a major concern as the responses have to be recorded by enumerators.
• Wider distribution of questionnaires is possible but this is difficult with schedules.
• There is less accuracy and completeness of responses in questionnaires as compared to schedules.
• The success of questionnaires depends on the quality of questions but success of a schedule depends on the enumerators.
• The physical appearance of questionnaire matters a lot, which is less important in case of schedules.
• Observation method cannot be used along with questionnaires but it can be used along with schedule.

We explore and analyse the life of a social chapter or entity, whether it be a family, a person, an institution or a community, with the help of a case study. The purpose of case study method is to identify the factors and reasons that account for particular behaviour patterns of a sample chapter and its association with other social or environmental factors.

Generally social researchers use case study method to understand the complex social phenomenon and to identify the factors related to this phenomenon.

Case study provides the clues and ideas to a researcher for further research study. By adopting case study method, a researcher gets to know about happenings in the past, which could be related to the research studies and analyse the problem with better perspectives.

Assumptions of case study method

The assumptions made in a case study method are as follows:

• Case study depends on the imagination of the investigator who is analysing the case study. The investigator makes up his procedure as he goes along.
• History related to the case is complete and as coherent as it could be.
• It is advisable to supplement the case data by observational, statistical and historical data, since these provide standards for assessing the reliability and consistency of the case material.
• Efforts should be made to ascertain the reliability of life history data by examining the internal consistency of the material.
• A judicious combination of techniques of data collection is a prerequisite for securing data that is culturally meaningful and scientifically significant.

Advantages of Case Study Method

Key advantages of the case study method are as follows:

• Provides the basis for understanding complex social phenomenon and all related factors affecting the social phenomenon.
• Provides clues and ideas for exploratory research. When the researcher is not able to get a fair idea about the research, past happenings mentioned in a case study help the researcher get clues and ideas.
• Case study helps in generating objectives for exploratory research.
• It suggests the new courses of inquiry.
• Case study helps in formulating research hypothesis.

Disadvantages of Case Study Method

Some important disadvantages of case study method are as follows:

• Reliability : Data collected through case study may not be reliable or it can be difficult to verify the reliability of data in the current scenario.
• Adequacy : Data collected through case studies may not be adequate for research work as data is not pertinent to the research conditions.
• Representative : Data presented by case studies represents the happenings with unknown circumstances to a researcher. Hence, it cannot be the true representation of events to a researcher.

Case study as a method of business research

A detailed case study helps the researcher identify the reasons behind business related problems. As it can be possible that that particular incident has happened in past, so the current issues can be sorted out, by referring to the same case.

In depth analysis of selected cases is of particular value to business research when a complex set of variables may be at work in generating observed results and intensive study is needed to unravel the complexities.

The exploratory investigator should have an active curiosity and willingness to deviate from the initial plan, when the finding suggests a new course of enquiry, which might prove more productive. With the help of case study method, the risk can be minimized in any decision-making process.

Business Ethics

( Click on Topic to Read )

• What is Ethics?
• What is Business Ethics?
• Values, Norms, Beliefs and Standards in Business Ethics
• Indian Ethos in Management
• Ethical Issues in Marketing
• Ethical Issues in HRM
• Ethical Issues in IT
• Ethical Issues in Production and Operations Management
• Ethical Issues in Finance and Accounting
• What is Corporate Governance?
• What is Ownership Concentration?
• What is Ownership Composition?
• Types of Companies in India
• Internal Corporate Governance
• External Corporate Governance
• Corporate Governance in India
• What is Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)?
• What is Assessment of Risk?
• What is Risk Register?
• Risk Management Committee

Corporate social responsibility (CSR)

• Theories of CSR
• Arguments Against CSR
• Business Case for CSR
• Importance of CSR in India
• Drivers of Corporate Social Responsibility
• Developing a CSR Strategy
• Implement CSR Commitments
• CSR Marketplace
• CSR at Workplace
• Environmental CSR
• CSR with Communities and in Supply Chain
• Community Interventions
• CSR Monitoring
• CSR Reporting
• Voluntary Codes in CSR
• What is Corporate Ethics?

Lean Six Sigma

• What is Six Sigma?
• What is Lean Six Sigma?
• Value and Waste in Lean Six Sigma
• Six Sigma Team
• MAIC Six Sigma
• Six Sigma in Supply Chains
• What is Binomial, Poisson, Normal Distribution?
• What is Sigma Level?
• What is DMAIC in Six Sigma?
• What is DMADV in Six Sigma?
• Six Sigma Project Charter
• Project Decomposition in Six Sigma
• Critical to Quality (CTQ) Six Sigma
• Process Mapping Six Sigma
• Flowchart and SIPOC
• Gage Repeatability and Reproducibility
• Statistical Diagram
• Lean Techniques for Optimisation Flow
• Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
• What is Process Audits?
• Six Sigma Implementation at Ford
• IBM Uses Six Sigma to Drive Behaviour Change
• Research Methodology
• What is Research?
• What is Hypothesis?

Sampling Method

• Data Collection in Research
• Methods of Collecting Data
• Application of Business Research
• Levels of Measurement
• What is Sampling?

Hypothesis Testing

• Research Report
• What is Management?
• Planning in Management
• Decision Making in Management
• What is Controlling?
• What is Coordination?
• What is Staffing?
• Organization Structure
• What is Departmentation?
• Span of Control
• What is Authority?
• Centralization vs Decentralization
• Organizing in Management
• Schools of Management Thought
• Classical Management Approach
• Is Management an Art or Science?
• Who is a Manager?

Operations Research

• What is Operations Research?
• Operation Research Models
• Linear Programming
• Linear Programming Graphic Solution
• Linear Programming Simplex Method
• Linear Programming Artificial Variable Technique
• Duality in Linear Programming
• Transportation Problem Initial Basic Feasible Solution
• Transportation Problem Finding Optimal Solution
• Project Network Analysis with Critical Path Method
• Project Network Analysis Methods
• Project Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT)
• Simulation in Operation Research
• Replacement Models in Operation Research

Operation Management

• What is Strategy?
• What is Operations Strategy?
• Operations Competitive Dimensions
• Operations Strategy Formulation Process
• What is Strategic Fit?
• Strategic Design Process
• Focused Operations Strategy
• Corporate Level Strategy
• Expansion Strategies
• Stability Strategies
• Retrenchment Strategies
• Competitive Advantage
• Strategic Choice and Strategic Alternatives
• What is Production Process?
• What is Process Technology?
• What is Process Improvement?
• Strategic Capacity Management
• Production and Logistics Strategy
• Taxonomy of Supply Chain Strategies
• Factors Considered in Supply Chain Planning
• Operational and Strategic Issues in Global Logistics
• Logistics Outsourcing Strategy
• What is Supply Chain Mapping?
• Supply Chain Process Restructuring
• Points of Differentiation
• Re-engineering Improvement in SCM
• What is Supply Chain Drivers?
• Supply Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) Model
• Customer Service and Cost Trade Off
• Internal and External Performance Measures
• Linking Supply Chain and Business Performance
• Netflix’s Niche Focused Strategy
• Disney and Pixar Merger
• Process Planning at Mcdonald’s

Service Operations Management

• What is Service?
• What is Service Operations Management?
• What is Service Design?
• Service Design Process
• Service Delivery
• What is Service Quality?
• Gap Model of Service Quality
• Juran Trilogy
• Service Performance Measurement
• Service Decoupling
• IT Service Operation
• Service Operations Management in Different Sector

Procurement Management

• What is Procurement Management?
• Procurement Negotiation
• Types of Requisition
• RFX in Procurement
• What is Purchasing Cycle?
• Vendor Managed Inventory
• Internal Conflict During Purchasing Operation
• Spend Analysis in Procurement
• Sourcing in Procurement
• Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Procurement
• Blacklisting of Suppliers in Procurement
• Total Cost of Ownership in Procurement
• Incoterms in Procurement
• Documents Used in International Procurement
• Transportation and Logistics Strategy
• What is Capital Equipment?
• Procurement Process of Capital Equipment
• Acquisition of Technology in Procurement
• What is E-Procurement?
• E-marketplace and Online Catalogues
• Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement Contracts
• Contract Cancellation in Procurement
• Ethics in Procurement
• Legal Aspects of Procurement
• Global Sourcing in Procurement
• Intermediaries and Countertrade in Procurement

Strategic Management

• What is Strategic Management?
• What is Value Chain Analysis?
• Mission Statement
• Business Level Strategy
• What is SWOT Analysis?
• What is Competitive Advantage?
• What is Vision?
• What is Ansoff Matrix?
• Prahalad and Gary Hammel
• Strategic Management In Global Environment
• Competitor Analysis Framework
• Competitive Rivalry Analysis
• Competitive Dynamics
• What is Competitive Rivalry?
• Five Competitive Forces That Shape Strategy
• What is PESTLE Analysis?
• Fragmentation and Consolidation Of Industries
• What is Technology Life Cycle?
• What is Diversification Strategy?
• What is Corporate Restructuring Strategy?
• Resources and Capabilities of Organization
• Role of Leaders In Functional-Level Strategic Management
• Functional Structure In Functional Level Strategy Formulation
• Information And Control System
• What is Strategy Gap Analysis?
• Issues In Strategy Implementation
• Matrix Organizational Structure
• What is Strategic Management Process?

Supply Chain

• What is Supply Chain Management?
• Supply Chain Planning and Measuring Strategy Performance
• What is Warehousing?
• What is Packaging?
• What is Inventory Management?
• What is Material Handling?
• What is Order Picking?
• Receiving and Dispatch, Processes
• What is Warehouse Design?
• What is Warehousing Costs?

You Might Also Like

Primary data and secondary data, what is sampling need, advantages, limitations, research process | types, what is measure of skewness, what is scaling techniques types, classifications, techniques, types of errors affecting research design, steps in questionnaire design, what is research design types, data analysis in research, types of charts used in data analysis, leave a reply cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

World's Best Online Courses at One Place

We’ve spent the time in finding, so you can spend your time in learning

Digital Marketing

Personal growth.

Development

HOW to Find Research Instruments

Books about research.

Information Literacy Coordinator

What are Research Instruments?

Research instruments are tools used to collect, measure, and analyze data related to your subject.

Research instruments can be  tests ,  surveys ,  scales ,  questionnaires , or even  checklists .

To assure the strength of your study, it is important to use previously validated instruments!

Finding Research Instruments

Sage Research Methods

This database contains information suited to all levels of researchers, from undergrads starting their first projects to the most senior faculty. It contains books, reference works, case studies, sample datasets, and videos. There is everything a researcher needs to design and execute a research project. 

You can explore the Methods Map in this database for guidance on:

• Designing a research project
• Quantitative methods design
• Qualitative methods design
• The practice of data analysis
• and more...

PsycINFO 1887-Current (EbscoHost)  

• This APA database contains useful information on Tests & Measures.                                                                     
• In searching, opt for the Tests & Measures selection to retrieve articles with relevant tests and measures
• Also refer to this LINK for more details about using PsycInfo
• Link to some educational resources on research instruments
• Selecting, developing, and evaluating research instruments

BOOKS from the ZU Library

Developing Research Instruments

Suggested sources of information:

• Electronic Questionnaires Design and Implementation
• Fundamental issues in questionnaire design

Instrument Development : Sage Research Methods                                     

Tips for developing and testing questionnaires

Using Cronbach’s Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments

• Magowe, M. K. M. (2012). Procedures for an instrument development study : The Botswana experience: Research instrument development procedures.  International Nursing Review,  59 (2), 281-288.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-7657.2011.00950.x
• Zhang, H., & Schuster, T. (2018). Questionnaire instrument development in primary health care research : A plea for the use of Bayesian inference.  Canadian Family Physician,  64 (9), 699-700.

Assessing the Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments

It is important to assess an instrument's validity and reliability before you try to obtain its full text.

• Open  this link  for information on  How to Determine the Validity and Reliability of an Instrument
• Article: Mohamad, M. M., Sulaiman, N. L., Sern, L. C., & Salleh, K. M. (2015). Measuring the validity and reliability of research instruments.  Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences ,  204 , 164-171.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.129
• Chapter: Stapleton, L. M. (2019). In Hancock G. R., Stapleton L. M. and Mueller R. O.(Eds.),  The Reviewer’s guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences   (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315755649. Chapter 35

Where you find that data depends on whether the instrument is "published" or "unpublished." 

Published Instruments

Published means commercially published, and that the instrument is typically available for sale. you can find reviews of many published instruments, including validity and reliability data, in  mental measurements yearbook , unpublished instruments, unpublished means that the instrument has not been commercially published.  if the instrument is   unpublished ,   contact the author directly., you may be able to find the full text of unpublished instruments using the  library's databases..

• If you find the full text, read the  permission terms  to determine if it is available for reuse or if you will need to contact the author/publisher.
• Look for the author's email address or phone number to contact them, also letting them know that you are a student.
• If the email bounces back or phone number doesn't work, search for their institution affiliation as this may lead to their contact information. 
• Ask your professor or  a librarian  for help! They might be able to help. 
• If you have tried all of the above and still cannot locate the author, see if the author has any co-authors (in other papers) that you can contact.
• Contact authors of articles that mention the instrument you are looking for, and ask them how they obtained permission.
• Last Updated: Aug 31, 2022 3:49 PM
• URL: https://zu.libguides.com/c.php?g=1210895

Awu Isaac Oben Faculty of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

Awu Isaac Oben is a PhD scholar of Educational Leadership and Management at Southwest University, Chongqing, China. He holds a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree of Education (B.Ed. and M.Ed.) in Curriculum Studies and Teaching from the University of Buea. His research interest includes; Higher Education, Educational Leadership and Management, STEM/STEAM Education-Integrated teaching, Curriculum and Instruction, Educational Policies, Teacher Education, Preservice and In‐Service teacher preparation, School Improvement, English Language Teaching and learning, Teachers and Principals professional development, Research Policy, Policies to Improve Research.

.................................................

..................................................

Education Journals

European Journal Of Physical Education and Sport Science

European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching

European Journal of English Language Teaching

European Journal of Special Education Research

European Journal of Alternative Education Studies

European Journal of Open Education and E-learning Studies

Public Health Journals

European Journal of Public Health Studies

European Journal of Fitness, Nutrition and Sport Medicine Studies

European Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Studies

Social Sciences Journals

European Journal of Social Sciences Studies

European Journal of Economic and Financial Research

European Journal of Management and Marketing Studies

European Journal of Human Resource Management Studies

European Journal of Political Science Studies

Literature, Language and Linguistics Journals

European Journal of Literature, Language and Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Literary Studies

European Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies

European Journal of Multilingualism and Translation Studies

...................................................

• Other Journals
• ##Editorial Board##
• ##Indexing and Abstracting##
• ##Author's guidelines##
• ##Covered Research Areas##
• ##Announcements##
• ##Related Journals##
• ##Manuscript Submission##

RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS: A QUESTIONNAIRE AND AN INTERVIEW GUIDE USED TO INVESTIGATE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION OBJECTIVES AND THE ATTAINMENT OF CAMEROON'S VISION 2035

Article visualizations:

Amin, M. E. (2005). Social Science Research: conception, methodology and analysis. Kampala: Makerere University.

Amin, M. E. and Fonkeng, E. G. (2008). Gender and the Demand for Primary Education in Cameroon. In V. Demos and M.T Segal (Eds), Social Change For Women and Children. Stanford: JAI Press.

Amin, M. E. (2002). Six factors of course and teaching evaluation in a bilingual university in central Africa. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 27,(3), 281–291.

Cameroon (1995). Final Report on the National Forum on Education Yaoundé, Ministry of National Education.

Cameroon schools. Limbe: Design House.

Cameroon (2001). Law No. 005 of 16 April 2001 to Guide Higher Education.

Darling, H. L. (1992). Teacher quality and students achievement: A review of state policy Evidence. Stanford University press

Design house Limbe, press print ltd, Limbe.

Doh, B. T. S. (2015). Evaluating the Strategic Objectives of Cameroonian Higher Education: An application of the Balanced Scorecard. JUVENES PRINT – Suomen Yliopistopaino Oy, Turku. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279040912

Doh, P. S. (2007). Harmonization Challenges in Higher Education: Case of the French and British Bicultural System in Cameroon. Published Master’s Thesis, University of Tampere, Finland. Available at: http://tutkielmat.uta.fi

Doh, P. S. (2008). Global Integration Policies Versus Institutional Dynamics of Higher Education. In Sarah & Chalier, (eds.), The Implications of Competition for the Future of European Higher Education. European Education, vol. 40, pp. 78–97.

Doh, P. S. (2012). The Responses of the Higher Education Sector in the Poverty Reduction Strategies in Africa: the Case of Cameroon. Doctoral Dissertation, Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1755, Tampere University Press, Tampere.

Echu, G. (2005). The immersion experience in Anglophone Primary Schools in Cameroon. ISB4. In Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Bilingualism, ed. J. Cohen, K .T. McAlister, K. Rolstad and J. MacSwan, 643-55. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

Education to an undergraduate interdisciplinary studies degree program. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education. Vol59, 161-166.

Eid, F. H. (2014). Research, higher education and the quality of teaching: Inquiry in a Japanese academic context Higher Education Council, Kingdom of Bahrain. Research in Higher Education Journal Vol. 24

Elad, G. M. (1982). Schooling and National Integration in Cameroon. Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Institute of Education. University of London.

Endeley, M. N. (2014). Teaching practice in Cameroon: The effectiveness of the University of Buea model and implications for quality. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39 (11). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n11.9

Fongwe, N. S. (2010). The Contribution of Higher Education to Regional Socio economic Development: The University of Buea, Cameroon, as a Growth Pole. A thesis submitted to University of the Western Cape

Fonkeng, G. E. (2007). The History of Education in Cameroon, 1884-2004. The Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston.

Gagne, R. W. (1967). Curriculum research and the pro- motion of learning. In R. W. Tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M. Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curricular evaluation. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Gelaneh, B. J. (2012). The Role of Civics and Ethical Education in the Development of Students’ behavior: The Case of Kokebe Tsibiha Secondary and Preparatory school. A Thesis Submitted to Institute of Educational Research. Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

GESP (2009). Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (2009): Reference work for government action over the Period 2010-2020 New York: MCG.RAW. Hill, Inc.

Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. USA: Allyn Bacon, Inc

Growth and Employment Strategy Paper (2009). Reference work for government action over the Period 2010-2020New York: MCG.RAW. Hill, Inc.

Harbison, F., & Meyer, A. (1964). Education Manpower and Economic Growth: New York: Mac Growhill Book Company.

Harper, L & Ross, J. (2011). An application of knowledge theories of adult

Henry, L. T. (2002). Introduction to sociology. Framingham state higher education university of Toronto press, pg 34-6.

Kellner, M. G. and Douglas, D. (1989). Critical theory, Marxism and Modernity. Oxford printing.

Konings, P. (2004). Trade union activism among university teachers during Cameroons political liberalism. Nordic Journal of African Studies. Vol13 (3) P 289-301.

Kornblum, W. (1991). Sociology in a changing world. City university of New York, graduate school and University center.2nd edition.

Krejcie R. V. and Morgan D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30,608, Sage Publications.

Mbiko, S. A. (1990). A Handbook on Research Methods. Etukokwu publishers (NIG) Ltd: Onisha Nigeria

Mbua, F. N. (2003). Educational administration: Theory and practice. Limbe; Design House.

Mbua, F. N. (2003). Educational planning: Issues and perspectives. Limbe: Design House.

Meek, A. (1993). On setting the Highest Standards: A conversation with Ralph Tyler. Educational Leadership, 50, 83-86.

MENESUP (2001). Law No 005/004 of 14th April to Guide Higher Education in Cameroon.

MINEDUC (1995). The National Education Forum (Yaoundé: MINEDUC).

MINEDUC (1998). Law No. 98/004 of 14 April to Lay Down Guidelines for Education in Cameroon (Yaoundé: Presidency of the Republic).

MINEPAT (2009). Growth and Employment Strategy Paper: Reference work for Government Action over the Period 2010-2020.

MINESUP (2001). Law No. 005 of 16 April 2001 to Guide Higher Education, Cameroon

MINJEF, (2016) Directories on Higher Institutes of Learning in the South West Region of Cameroon. Regional Delegation for Youths Affairs and Civic Education South West. P.O Box 007 Buea

Ndongko, T. M., & Tambo, L. I. (2000). Educational development in Cameroon 1961- 1999 issues and perspectives. United State of America: Modison Wisdom Publishers Ltd.

Ndongko, T. M. (1989). A Handbook on Secondary School Administration. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books.

Ngwane, G. M. (2009). Vision 2035: Rebranding Cameroon. Retrieved, November 2015, from https://cameroonpostline.com/cameroun-vision-2035-rebranding-cameroon

Nsamenang, A. B. and Tchombe, T. M. (2011). Hand Book of Africa Educational Theories and Practices. A Generative Teacher Education Curriculum. Yaoundé, Cameroon press Universitaries D’Afrique.

Nsamenang, A. B. (2007). The Teaching Learning Transaction. T-junction, Bamenda, Anoh’s printing service.

Ojong, T. T. (2008). Philosophical and historical foundations of education in Cameroon 1844-1960. Limbe: Design House.

Peters, R. S. (1964). Ethics and Education, London University Press.

Plessis, T. D. (2006). From Monolingual to Bilingual Higher Education: The Repositioning of Historically Afrikaans-Medium Universities in South Africa. Language Policy (2006) 5: 87–113. Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10993-005-5627-5.

Republic of Cameroon (1998). Law No 98/004 of 14th April to laying down Guidelines for Education in Cameroon.

Sadker, R. M., & Sadker, M. D. (1991). Teachers, school and society. (2nded). New York: Mc Graw Hill, Inc.

Shu, S. N. (1985). Land marks in Cameroon education 1884-1982 (1sted). Limbe: Nooremac Press.

SUP INFOS. (2010b). A Bilingual Quarter Review of Higher Education in Cameroon. No. 14, MINESUP Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Tamajong, E. V., & Fonkeng, E. G. (2008). Secondary school administration and principalship. Yaoundé: Press University d’Afrique.

Tambo, L. I. (2003). Cameroon National Education Policy since the 1995 Forum. Limbe: Design House.

Tambo, L. I. (2003). Principles and methods of teaching. Application in Cameroon Schools. Limbe: Design House.

Tambo, L. I. (2012). Principles and Methods of Teaching. Application in Cameroon Schools. Limbe: Design House.

Tchombe, M. S. T (2004). Psychological Parenters in Teaching. Yaoundé, Cameroon. Press Universitairesd’ Afrique.

Tchombe, T. M. (1994). Growth and development of teacher education in Cameroon. In Ndongko, T. M. & Tambo, L. I. (Eds.) Educational Development in Cameroon 1961-1999: Issues and Perspectives. Nkemnji Global Tech, Platteville

Tchombe, T. M. (2000). Access of Girls to Basic Education in Cameroon, UNESCO

Tchombe, T. M. (2001). Structural Reforms in Education in Cameroon. http://www.unifr.ch/ipg/ecodoc/conferences/DocuPDFConfInter/Tchombe.pdf

Torney-Purta, J. and Wilkenfeld, B. (2009). Paths to 21st Century Competencies Through Civic Education Classrooms, Chicago, IL: American Bar Association Division for Public Education.

UNESCO (1998). Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action, Paris

UNESCO (2003). Report of the Working Group on the Teaching of Ethics. Paris, COMEST

UNESCO-CEPES (2000). The bilingual university—its origins, mission, and functioning. Report on an invitational seminar, UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest, Romania, 15–19 March 2000.

United Nations (2015). Transforming Our World. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved January 10.2016, from, https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/

World Bank (2009). The East Asian Miracle New York: Oxford University Press.

Yeba, J. S. (2015). Socio-cultural factors affecting gender inequality in higher education: Journal of Educational Research in Africa.

• There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright © 2015-2023. European Journal of Education Studies (ISSN 2501 - 1111) is a registered trademark of Open Access Publishing Group . All rights reserved.

This journal is a serial publication uniquely identified by an International Standard Serial Number ( ISSN ) serial number certificate issued by Romanian National Library ( Biblioteca Nationala a Romaniei ). All the research works are uniquely identified by a CrossRef DOI digital object identifier supplied by indexing and repository platforms. All authors who send their manuscripts to this journal and whose articles are published on this journal retain full copyright of their articles. All the research works published on this journal are meeting the  Open Access Publishing  requirements and can be freely accessed, shared, modified, distributed and used in educational, commercial and non-commercial purposes under a  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) .