EvalCompassEvalCompass
Data collectionQualitative researchSemi-structuredRapportTranscriptsIn-depth exploration

Interview

Interview
Also known as: Interview study、Listening interviews、Individual interviews

A method of eliciting specific experiences and reasons for judgments through dialogue. Define question structure and selection rationale, and interpret statements with their context and interviewer influence. [1]

Interview guide design worksheet — openReferences and checked sections
Difficulty
Intermediate
Cost
Medium
Duration
Illustrative planning durations, not common standards: preparation 1–2 weeks, interviews 45–90 minutes each × participants, analysis 2–4 weeks
Content updated: 2026-10-07Source checked: 2026-09-13 (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examples

How it works at a glance

Structured interviews standardize questions and order; semi-structured interviews retain common topics while probing accounts. Unstructured interviews explore participants' interests. [1]

Select people suited to questions and prepare explanation, consent, recording and analysis. Statements express personal views; understand them alongside event records and other perspectives. [1]

  1. Decide purpose and format
  2. Develop an interview guide
  3. Select participants and obtain consent
  4. Build rapport and interview
  5. Record and transcribe
  6. Member checking and further confirmation
  7. Coding and thematic analysis
Sequence of implementation steps. See “Implementation steps” for details of each stage.

When to use it and when it is unsuitable

When to use it

  • Deeply understand implementation, beneficiary experiences and change contexts
  • Explore why quantitative findings cannot be explained
  • Understand diverse stakeholder views and conflicting interests
  • Sensitive topics such as victimization or workplace problems requiring face-to-face relationships

When it is unsuitable

  • Consider sample surveys when estimating large-population proportions is the main aim
  • Without skilled interviewers, leading questions or inadequate probing can distort data
  • People unable to bear time burdens, such as busy managers or beneficiaries in crisis

Participants, roles, and deliverables

Participants and roles

Interviewers and note-takers as needed. Select people and numbers from questions, experience diversity, analysis approach and feasibility.

Main deliverables

  • Verbatim transcripts
  • Coding sheets and codebook
  • Thematic analysis report and individual interview summaries

Implementation steps

  1. Decide purpose and format
    Choose structured, semi-structured or unstructured formats according to questions. Choose structured for comparability and semi-structured for depth of context.
  2. Develop an interview guide
    Organize core and probing questions. Pilot number and order according to purpose, duration and burden; avoid leading.
  3. Select participants and obtain consent
    Use purposive sampling suited to purpose, such as maximum variation, typical or critical cases. Prepare informed-consent documents and obtain written consent for audio or video recording.
  4. Build rapport and interview
    Explain purpose, anonymity and stopping rights, then use an icebreaker to ease tension. Probe through listening, silence, paraphrasing and emotionally considerate follow-up.
  5. Record and transcribe
    Take notes alongside consented recording. Supplement interview notes while memory is fresh; produce transcripts by deadlines set from analysis plans. Record important expressions, silence and emotional changes in field notes.
  6. Member checking and further confirmation
    Check important statements and interpretations with participants and correct misunderstandings. Obtain agreement for further questions if needed.
  7. Coding and thematic analysis
    Code transcripts by evaluation questions and conduct thematic or content analysis. State the approach and assumptions. For agreement-based approaches, use multiple researchers; in reflexive thematic analysis, record interpretation and reflection processes.

Strengths and limitations

Strengths

  • Deeply captures experience, meaning and process contexts beyond quantitative research
  • Participants' words are primary data suitable for report quotations
  • Strong exploratory capacity for unexpected outcomes or problems
  • Flexible dialogue checks understanding and corrects misunderstandings

Limitations

  • Time and cost make large numbers difficult
  • Quality varies substantially with interviewer skills and relationships
  • Analysis tends toward subjectivity; structured coding procedures are needed for reproducibility
  • Prone to social desirability bias in responses

Common pitfalls

  • Leading questions such as wasn't it this way steer answers. Use open questions and have several people review the guide.
  • Focusing on notes can neglect listening and probing. Use recording and minimize handwritten notes.
  • Do not reduce overwhelming data to striking quotations. Plan coding procedures beforehand and analyze whole transcripts.

Conditions of use and evidence

  • Align interview format with purpose and state narrative context and selection methods. [1]
  • Thematic analysis approaches differ in assumptions. Do not impose multiple independent coders or agreement rates as mandatory in reflexive TA. [2]
  • Treat prompt supplementation of notes and planned audio transcription as separate tasks. [3]
Fictional example; not actual results

Interview people who did and did not use plans

A fictional illustration: purposively select trainees who used plans and those who did not.

QuestionFictional statementAnalysis note
When did you last use the plan?I showed my supervisor before the meeting and it went on the agendaPrior discussion with a supervisor may have supported use
What happened when you did not use it?Responsibilities changed and no meeting was plannedFurther check transfers and lack of discussion opportunities

Common errors in judgment

Common mistake

Ask training improved things for you, didn't it?

How to revise

Ask what changed and what happened before and after

ReasonAvoid asking for endorsement of support.

Common mistake

Treat one striking remark as everyone's view

How to revise

State the speaker's perspective and different cases too

ReasonPurposively selected accounts are not representative frequency estimates.

Organize your thinking by writing

Interview guide design worksheet

A practical template is available to fill in and print on A4 paper.

Open worksheet

Related practical guides

Training effectiveness measurementHow to design an evaluation questionnaireHow to conduct evaluation interviewsWhat is process evaluation?

Related methods

Focus Group DiscussionCase StudyThematic AnalysisObservationMost Significant Change

References and checked sections

  1. Interviews
    BetterEvaluation
    Section consulted
    Types of interviews
    How it relates to the text
    Align interview format with purpose and state narrative context and selection methods.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)
  2. Thematic Analysis FAQs
    Virginia Braun / Victoria Clarke
    Section consulted
    Why don’t we advocate multiple-coders and inter-rater reliability for reflexive TA?; Should someone else check my coding?
    How it relates to the text
    Reflexive TA does not treat coder agreement as a universal quality requirement; it addresses researcher interpretation, position and reflection.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)
  3. Public Participation Guide: Stakeholder Interviews
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    Section consulted
    Principles for Successful Planning; Implementation Time (updated January 6, 2026)
    How it relates to the text
    Advice to organize notes while memory is fresh, not a uniform deadline for audio transcripts.
    Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)

Editorial and checking information

Content updated: Source checked: (includes AI cross-checking)No documented human reviewIncludes fictional examplesEditorial policy and scope of checkingCite this pageReport a correction

How to cite this page

EvalCompass Editorial Team. “Interview”. EvalCompass, updated 2026-10-07. https://evalcompass.jun-nakatani.com/en/methods/interview/
Add the date you accessed the page. Text created by this site is available under CC BY 4.0. Quotations, external materials, and bundled fonts have their own terms of use. When reusing content, credit the source, link to the license, and indicate any changes.

Suggest a correction or improvement to this page

Change history
  • — Checked sources for definitions and conditions and added fictional examples, judgment rationales and completed entries for every field. Revised unsupported historical or uptake claims. Reviewed procedures and cautions, adjusting fixed counts, thresholds and institutional generalizations. Preserved field positions, types and counts while revising fixed conditions and thresholds.
  • — Clarified analysis approaches, recording deadlines, participant-count scope and response-rate assumptions based on focused follow-up FW-U01–U05. Preserved existing fields and did not declare numerical guides inherently wrong.