Qualitative Interviewing and the Art if Questioning: Promises,
Possibilities, Problems, and Pitfalls
Nancy Fichtman Dana
Thomas M. Dana
Karla Lynn Kelsay
The Florida State University
Deborah Thomas
Georgia Southern University
Deborah J. Tippins
University of Georgia
Blessed are the skilled questioners, for they shall be
given mountains of words to ascend.
Blessed are the wise questioners, for they shall unlock
the hidden corridors of knowledge.
Blessed are the listening questioners, for they shall
gain perspective. (Patton, 1990)
Qualitative interviewing is often considered a favorite
methodological tool of qualitative researchers (Denzin, 1978).
Although "the quality of the information obtained during an
interview is largely dependent on the interviewer" (Patton, 1990,
p. 279), few methodological sources focusing on the skill of
interviewing are available for novice and veteran qualitative
researchers who seek to improve their interviewing skills. This
paper draws on the limited qualitative interviewing
methodological sources available (Patton, 1990; Seidman, 1991) as
well as on literature on questioning and classroom discussion
(Dana, 1988; Dillon, 1988; Swift & Gooding, 1983; Rowe, 1987) in
order to create practical strategies qualitative researchers can
employ to improve their interviewing skills. These practical
strategies are followed by four constructed interviews between
the authors of this paper. These interviews serve to illustrate
the practical suggestions offered in the first part of this paper
while simultaneously telling the stories of four researchers and
their encounters with the promises, possibilities, problems, and
pitfalls associated with qualitative interviewing.
The Art of Questioning: Wording Makes a Difference
Questioning has long been a subject of inquiry in
educational settings. We have learned from the work of such
researchers and theorists as Gall (1970), Payne (1951), Sanders
(1966), and Wilen (1987) that questioning is indeed an art. The
quality of the response a teacher receives from a student or a
qualitative researcher receives from an informant is a function
of the careful composition of each question asked. Often, a
slight variation in wording can inhibit a response to a question,
rather than allow a teacher or researcher to access the
perspective of the person being questioned (Patton, 1990).
Therefore, based on the questioning research on classroom
discussions as well as suggestions for qualitative interviewing
made by Patton (1990), we suggest the following guidelines in
wording questions that allow a respondent to make explicit his
feelings, thoughts, opinions, or beliefs rather than express
imposed responses predetermined by the qualitative researcher.
Guideline # 1. Questions should be short and precise.
Avoid questions that contain embedded parenthetical phrases. The
quality of an informant's answer is based on the assumption that
the informant clearly understands the intent of the questions
posed by the researcher. Questions that contain embedded
parenthetical phrases [for example, "How do you view the
relationship (by that I mean how people get along, what roles
does each play etc.) between parents and the school?] may confuse
the informant, thereby leading to responses that do not answer
the question intended by the researcher, wasting valuable
interview time.
Guideline # 2. Ask only one question at a time. After the
researcher initially poses a question, the informant may require
time to think. Uncomfortable with the silence, the researcher
often rephrases a question, and in the rephrasing, actually asks
a different question. Similar to lengthy questions containing
parenthetical phrases, multiple questions may confuse the
informant. Furthermore, multiple questions will not yield clear
data as the researcher may not be able to discern what question
is being answered.
Guideline # 3. Avoid questions in which the answer is
either given or implied. The purpose of a qualitative interview
"is not to put things in someone's mind (for example, the
interviewer's preconceived categories for organizing the world)
but to access the perspective of the person being interviewed"
(Patton, 1990, p. 278). Qualitative researchers must pay close
attention that the wording of their questions does not impose
their own preconceived thoughts on the interviewee. For example,
by phrasing an interview question as "Isn't the quality of life
more important than the quantity?," the researcher sends the
implicit message to the informant that he or she values the
quality of life above the quantity of life. The same question is
better phrased as, "If you had to choose between quality of life
or quantity, which would you choose?" In addition,
dichotomous questioning should be avoided. The purpose of an
interview is to get the informant to talk as much as possible.
Dichotomous questions imply that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is
the only information requested by the researcher.
Guideline # 4. Be cognizant of interviewees use of language
(i.e. dialects, idioms, jargon, slang). Use language that is
understandable and comfortable for your informants. Clearly, in
order for informants to answer a question, they must understand
it. A period of time spent observing an informant may clue the
researcher in on the informant's use of language. The researcher
can then adjust the wording or phrasing of his or her questions
so that wording and phrasing are appropriate to the informants'
use of language.
Guideline # 5. Avoid why questions. Because why questions
ask informants to justify previous responses, thoughts, or
feelings, "why" questions can potentially be interpreted by
informants as threatening. If threatened, informants may become
defensive in their responses, affecting the data obtained. If
carried to an extreme, the researcher risks alienating the
informant and thereby looses a valuable source for data
collection, analysis, and triangulation. "Why" questions such as
"Why do you arrange student desks in rows?," can be easily
rephrased as "What are some reasons for the way you arranged your
classroom?"
Another Look At Questioning: It's Not Just the Wording, It May Be
The Questions Themselves
Although the art of composing a question is important, there
are actions a qualitative researcher can take during an interview
that depart from the typical researcher question - informant
answer format of most interviews. These strategies may further
facilitate verbal participation of the informant without the risk
of the researcher presupposing what dimensions of thought,
feelings, or opinions are salient to informant. We believe that
the use of question alternatives proposed by Dillon (1981) for
classroom teachers' use during classroom discussions can be
applied to qualitative research to enable an interviewer to
better determine the dimensions, themes, images, or words people
use to describe the events of their life. Rather than a question
directed response, a person responding to a question alternative
may select "from among that person's full repertoire of possible
responses" (Patton, 1990, p. 296). The questions alternative
proposed by Dillon are summarized and related to qualitative
interviewing as follows:
Alternative # 1. The Declarative Statement. The
qualitative researcher expresses his or her own state of mind,
thought, or interpretation that occurred to the researcher in
relation to what the informant has just said. When the
researcher shares his/her interpretations of an informants'
response, the informant has the option of accepting or rejecting
the researcher's declaration, and may speak elaborately in
acceptance or rejection of the researcher's statement or
interpretation, rather than briefly answering a researcher's
posed question. This alternative additionally allows the
researcher to fulfill the researcher obligation of "turning his/
her thought back on itself," in order to "search out possible
sources of blindness and bias in the researcher's own ways of
making sense of the reality being observed" (Schon, 1991, p.
357). When using this alternative, the researcher tests
constructions in the interview by "bringing to the surface,
juxtaposing, and discriminating among alternative accounts of
that reality" (Schon, 1991, p. 357). Alternative # 2. The
Reflective Statement. The qualitative researcher summarizes
his/her understanding of the informant's preceding statement,
giving it an exact sense. This alternative indicates to the
informant that the researcher is indeed attentive and
appreciative of the contribution being made by the informant in a
non-judgmental or threatening way. Thus, reflective statements
may place informants at ease during the interview, helping the
researcher to develop rapport and trust. When a researcher
reflects rather than questions, the informant is encouraged to
agree and continue with the thought that he/she feels to be
valued, increasing the researcher's understanding of the
informant's world. Alternative # 3. The Declaration of
Perplexity. The qualitative researcher clarifies his/her
confusion or uncertainty of what the informant has said. This
alternative is substituted for a researcher's question when the
researcher is truly unclear of the informant's intent. A
question at this point could be directed to a statement that was
not said or meant by the informant, causing confusion or
incorrect interpretation by the researcher. Declaration of
perplexity can be formed by such statements as "I'm confused
about what you're saying," or "I'm sorry, I'm not getting it."
When a researcher declares perplexity, the informant is afforded
the opportunity to clarify the statement and in so doing, clarify
possible researcher interpretation.
Alternative # 4. The Invitation to Elaborate. The
qualitative researcher indicates that he/she would like to hear
more of the informant's views. This alternative is substituted
for the researcher's question to probe the informant's personal
feelings and experiences. A question at this point often
receives limited yes-no response. Invitation to elaborate can be
stated simply by the interviewer as, "I'd like to hear more of
your views on that." The invitation to elaborate encourages
informants in a non-threatening manner as the message the
informant receives is one of researcher care, concern, and
genuine interest in finding out the informant's reasons for
saying or thinking something.
Alternative # 5. Deliberate Silence, also called Wait Time.
The qualitative researcher deliberately says nothing at all for 3
to 5 seconds after an informant comments. This alternative
allows time for informant thought. When a researcher pauses with
a silence rather than questions, the informant has time to
complete a complex thought. When an informant is communicating a
complex thought, they often pause, falter, or hesitate. These
pauses are required for thinking, yet qualitative researchers
often interrupt with "the next question," missing the opportunity
for valuable data obtained when informants try to make sense of
their experiences.
The following sections of this paper illustrate the
alternatives to questioning techniques through constructed
interview transcript between the authors of this papers. These
constructed transcripts also serve to begin a dialogue about
interviewing issues that move beyond the technical aspects of
interviewing.
On Interviewing From a Critical Theorist Perspective: An
Interview with Deborah Thomas
Nancy: I understand you have a background working with early
adolescent females who are potential drop outs.
Deborah: Yes, I was a middle school teacher working with at-risk
students for several years. My dissertation study focused on
developing an understanding of how rural female students
identified as at-risk experience schooling from a critical
theorist perspective.
Nancy: As a critical theorist, what insights do you have on the
interviewing process?
Deborah: Critical theorists recognize that race, class and
gender inequities are legitimated and reproduced in the school
setting. A major goal of critical theorists is to implement
changes which lead to student empowerment. I found from my early
experiences that I tried to empower my students without first
understanding their experiences and perspectives.
Nancy: I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
Deborah: Let me share with you an example. One afternoon I was
talking with a group of five or six 13 or 14 year old eighth
grade girls. All of these girls were sexually active. They
shared with me that they often felt boys forced or pressured them
to engage in sex, and they did not know how to discourage boys'
advances. So I thought, "Ah ha, this is my opportunity to
empower these young girls." I began to ask them, or to encourage
them to come up with ideas for dealing with this situation. They
provided excellent ideas. I was feeling very smug thinking that
I was helping them change their lives. Just as the bell rang for
school to dismiss for the day, one of the young girls said to me,
"Ms. Thomas, but what do I do when I'm desperate?" I remember
feeling relieved that the bell had rung because I did know how to
respond. Her question made me realize that I had used my own
experiences as a basis for our discussion, rather than exploring
their lives and experiences. I had not considered the sexual
desires of these young girls, or recognize that a 13 or 14 year
old girl may have sexual desires. Our discussion did not empower
these girls. I did not give them an opportunity to share their
experiences.
Nancy: What have you learned from this experience?
Deborah: Interviewing is a valuable tool in developing an
understanding of the lives of our participants. It is imperative
to use the experiences of the participants, rather than our own,
as a basis for discussion. Developing an open, trusting
relationship with our participants, and inviting them to share
about their lives is empowering for both participant and
researcher.
On Implementing the Group Interview: An Interview with Thomas
Dana
Nancy: I understand that you have been involved in a study
working with a group of teachers in an elementary school.
Tom: There are eight of us in the group -- two university people
and six elementary school teachers. Together we have been
exploring the notion of teacher change and curriculum reform. We
meet together weekly for two hours in the school media center.
Nancy: What have you learned about interviewing from your
experience working with this group of teachers?
Tom: It's very different than working with one person. In the
group setting, there are often several people speaking at one
time. As the researcher, I've often been confronted with a
difficult decision: "What do I ask next when I've heard so many
different ideas?"
Nancy: What factors do you consider when deciding what to do
next?
Tom: Well it's like striking a balance. I need to consider what
these teachers want to get out of our session and what will
forward my research agenda. I will often admit that I have heard
a variety of ideas and ask them to isolate one or two that we can
explore in more detail.
Nancy: Interesting. Tell me more about your experiences with
group interviewing.
Tom: Well, another thing is, when these teacher speak, it is
often in the context of stories from their classrooms. These
stories have been fascinating and are a rich source of data.
However, there has been so much information embedded in these
stories that they have been difficult for me to react to on the
spot.
Nancy: It sounds as if implementing a group interview can become
somewhat chaotic.
Tom: It sure can, but it's certainly worth it. One advantage I
have found, in the midst of all the chaos, is that one teacher
will often build on another teacher's story, giving me insight
into the collective meanings negotiated by this group of teachers
as they explore school reform. I have learned that teachers are
often storytellers and communicate their knowledge of teaching
through narrative. At first this confused me as I was looking
for short and sweet, direct answers to questions posed. What I
have learned is that interviewers have to be good listeners,
especially when you are interviewing a focus group. Furthermore,
patience in the time consuming process of letting stories unfold
is rewarded with rich data and illustrative vignettes.
On Ethical Considerations of Interviewing: An Interview with
Deborah Tippins
Nancy: I'm interested in the process of interviewing. What
concerns do you have with the use of interviewing in qualitative
research?
Deborah: Well, the first problem that comes to mind is the
ethical considerations in the interview process. In my work with
teachers, I've encountered a variety of ethical dilemmas while
interviewing.
Nancy: I'd like to hear a personal example of an ethical dilemma
you've encountered in your research.
Deborah: I can think of an example that happened recently when I
was interviewing Greg, a middle school science teacher. Greg and
I were collaboratively investigating his beliefs about science
teaching and learning, and how these beliefs informed his
practice. During this particular interview, we began exploring
Greg's ideas about the nature of truth in relation to teaching
science. As the interview progressed, it was apparent that Greg
was becoming increasingly uncomfortable because the discussion of
truth was creating dissonance in terms of his religious beliefs.
As a researcher, I now faced an ethical dilemma: Should I
continue to probe his beliefs about truth knowing that he was
experiencing distress?
Nancy: It sounds as though you were feeling uncomfortable in
your role as a researcher.
Deborah: Actually, I wasn't feeling uncomfortable. I continued
to ask even more thought provoking questions about truth in order
to understand what Greg actually believed about truth.
Nancy: I hear you saying that it is ethical to cause an
informant to feel distressed in the interest of the research
data.
Deborah: In a certain sense, yes, because my research is
grounded in a particular set of beliefs consistent with an
epistemology known as constructivism.
[3 second pause]
Deborah: Basically, that means that learning is viewed as a
process of personally constructing or making sense of experiences
in relation to prior knowledge. From a constructivist
perspective, dissonance is desired in order for learning to
occur. So I see the dissonance that Greg was experiencing as
part of the learning process.
Nancy: So what is the moral of your story?
Deborah: Because ethical dilemmas are embedded in many aspects
of qualitative research and often surface in the context of
interviewing, I believe it's extremely important for research to
be epistemologically rooted. That means the researcher needs to
be aware of what they believe and how their beliefs are changing
in the course of the research process.
On Teaching the Skills of Interviewing: An Interview with Karla
Lynn Kelsay
Nancy: I understand that you have been teaching a course called
"The Teacher As Researcher." There must be a number of skills
these teachers need to successfully engage in the process of
doing qualitative research.
Karla: The skills are important, but what I see as being an
essential prerequisite is a mindset about what qualitative
research is, and what doing that kind of research might look
like.
Nancy: Tell me more about what you mean by a "mindset."
Karla: Well, a mindset is a way of looking at things -- a way of
seeing. When doing qualitative research, the researcher is
always trying to fit together the big picture and its individual
pieces. For me it's sort of like a puzzle.
Nancy: Interviewing is one essential skill in collecting rich
qualitative data. How would you help create a mindset for the
most effective use of interviewing in qualitative research?
Karla: I find it's best to start with existing notions about
what interviewing is, and what its purposes might be. Most
people have an idea about interviewing that involves the
interviewer trying to elicit somewhat specific information --
maybe similar to an interrogation. We talk about that first, and
then we move towards discussing more open kinds of questions.
Nancy: I'm confused about what you mean by "open kinds of
questions."
Karla: First, I think you have to go back to the driving force
behind qualitative research. You want to find what meaning a
person gives to something. You want to know why they give that
something that certain meaning. So, your open questions invite
your informants to let you know these things.
Nancy: This is still rather abstract. An example might help me
to understand your point.
Karla: Let's say a teacher researcher is interested in learning
more about the self concepts her students hold about themselves.
She certainly would not want to ask a direct question, such as,
"How's your self concept?" (laughter) Instead, she will ask
questions about things that might paint a picture of a child's
self concept. She might set up a scenario and invite a child to
talk about his or her feelings or opinions. She might ask
questions such as, "What do you think is really going on in this
story?" and "How would you feel in this situation?"
Nancy: So I hear you saying that asking open ended questions is
extremely important for successful interviewing.
Karla: Yes. The ultimate goal is to have rich data, full of the
informant's meanings. Open ended questions are the invitation
for the informant to respond with the most revelation.
Conclusions and Implication
According to Patton (1990), the best approach to qualitative
interviewing is "to believe that there is a way to unlock the
internal perspectives of every interviewee" (p. 358). Gaining
insights into these perspectives is the responsibility of the
interviewer. In this paper, we have summarized specific
technical skills that may provide the key for the interviewer to
unlock the internal perspectives of their informants. Yet, when
that door is opened, a range of other issues may surface. For
example, issues about interviewing that surfaced when qualitative
interviewers were "interviewed" in this paper include empowerment
of informants, the value of story and narrative in research,
ethical considerations of interviewing and finally, the
importance of creating a mindset for engaging in the process of
qualitative inquiry and the interview process. In our
constructed dialogues with one another regarding these issues, we
have not only learned from articulating our own experiences with
qualitative interviewing, but we have learned from the
experiences of others. Our dialogues are an attempt to begin a
conversation between qualitative researchers on the particular
approaches to their work. Our hope is that other qualitative
researchers will enter into these conversations as they encounter
the promises, possibilities, problems, and pitfalls of
qualitative interviewing and qualitative inquiry. References
Dana, N. (1988). The effects of questioning and alternatives to
questioning on student verbal participation in elementary
classroom discussions. Unpublished master's thesis, State
University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY.
Denzin, N. (1978). The research act: A theoretical
introduction to sociological methods. Chicago: Aldine.
Dillon, J. T. (1983). Teaching and the art of questioning.
(Fastback Monograph No. 194). Indiana: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Dillon, J. T. (1988). Questioning and discussion: A
multidisciplinary study. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
Gall, M. D. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of
Educational Research, 40, 707-721.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Payne, S. L. (1951). The art of asking questions. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rowe, M. B. (1987). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of
speeding up. American Educator, 38-47.
Sanders, N. M. (1966). Classroom questions: What kinds? New
York: Harper & Rowe.
Sch”n, D. A. (Ed.). (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies
in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Seidman, I. E. (1991). Interviewing as qualitative research: A
guide for researchers in education and the social sciences.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Swift, J. N., & Gooding. C. T. (1983). Discussion facilitation
guides. (Classroom Interaction Research Laboratory). New
York: State University College at Oswego.
Wilen, W. W. (Ed.) (1987). Questions, questioning techniques,
and effective teaching. Washington, D.C.: National Education
Association.