types of interview in research methodology ppt

Guide to Research Methods

About the guide

This guide will

Introduce you to a range of research methods
Help you think about the value and limitations of different research methods
Identify when to use alternative research methods

You should use the guide

After or while you establish your research questions (See the Guide to Research Questions )
When you are completing your Research Design Framework
When you are thinking about who you want to talk to and why (See the Guide to Sampling )

You should print or read this guide

These slides are set up so that they can be printed back to back (two/four sided) to give:

A short hand overview about when to use each method
A summary of the method, what it’s good for and limitations (linking to other slides in this pack)

Choosing research methods

When you need to think about which method is best in theory and in practice

Choosing Research Methods

Providing a rationale for the methods you choose to use and how you employ them.

What are your research goals? If you are looking to influence experts or policy makers, quantitative approaches will add weight to your findings. If you are looking to understand problems, inform innovation or develop a prototype, look at qualitative methods or user research
What are your research questions? If they begin with ‘explore’ or ‘what’ look at qualitative methods (talking). If they begin with ‘identify’ or ‘why’ look at quantitative (see guide to research questions )
What research traditions exist? You may choose to follow or challenge them. Think about whether you want your research to be noted for its quality and robustness or creative approach and unique insights
What are your/your teams skills? You may not be an expert in the most appropriate method so consider asking for other team members or commissioning out research
Who are you research participants? Think about your relationship to participants (especially if you are doing qualitative research) and how they will respond to you and the method. Consider if they are often consulted or surveyed and whether if could be helpful or unhelpful to stick with their comfort zone or not.

Using online tools

When you need to decide which tools to use for research

What to think about when choosing a tool to conduct research

What’s the cost to the research quality ? Most tools are ‘freemium’, use a basic version for free. BUT these are designed to annoy you to pay to do good research. Consider privacy settings, data access, storage and value for money. Survey tools will have no option to filter participants (if yes/no answer this q), a 10Q limit, no branding. Mapping/visualisations are published online and open source tools aren’t always user friendly
Start with user needs, understand the context and think about everyone. Consider what technology they have, how they will access the tool and what they need to do this. Do they have internet, data, time?
Be creative: Online tools may not be designed for research, but Google Forms, Trello, Workflowy and Slack are all valuable collaboration tools. Twitter and Facebook polls may increase participation in research. However, think about what they are missing, what they can’t do and pilot your analysis approach first
See what’s out there: This online sheet of Applied Social Research Guides and Resources includes a list of online tools for research and evaluation to test. Those widely used for your research method or sector are likely to be the best starting point. Some tools allow you to do research (see Tags for Twitter data capture), analyse it or present it in new ways (see Raw Graph s for data visualisation)

Contents: Methods summary

Structured Interviews : When you want to gain a broad range of perspectives about specific questions
Semi-Structured Interviews : When you want to gain in-depth insights about broad questions
Unstructured Interviews : When you want to gain in-depth insights about a complex research topics
Telephone Interviews : A tool for when you want to interview people quickly and easily
Guerilla Interviews : When you want to carry out user research or explore general perspectives quickly
Contextual Interviews : When you want to understand actions and particular experiences indepth and in context
Focus Groups : When you want to understand shared experiences and different perspectives
Participant Observation : When you want to ‘learn by doing’ or observe social interactions and behaviour
Ethnography : When you want to experience social practices, interactions and behaviour with minimal influence
Surveys: When you want to generate numerical data about the scale of people’s opinions and feelings
Mixed Methods: When one method cannot fully answer your main research question
User Research : When you want to learn about the behaviours and motivations of your target audience
Service Design Research : When you want to design a service to meet people’s needs.
Content Analysis : When you want to understand public discourse through secondary or online data
Workshops : When you want to engage stakeholders in research, generate ideas or codesign solutions
Usability tests : When you want to test prototypes or learn about problems with an existing service

Find out more

How to do good…

Applied social research: A curated online sheet of Applied Social Research Guides and Resources
Surveys : Guide to creating questions here and here , build on existing data/questions , analysis guide
Interviews : A nice overview here which includes how to structure an interview
User research : The GDS for intro guides and DisAmbiguity blog
Service design: This is Service Design Doing has great tools and formats for workshops

Inspiration for emerging research methods and creative formats for research

Ethnography and mixed methods presented well: Ikea At Home Report
User mapping techniques as a social research method NPC Report
User Research to understand domestic abuse experiences and the potential for technology Tech Vs Abuse
Using Twitter data for social research Demos
Data visualisation as a tool for research communication - Nesta data visualisation and Women’s Aid Map
Data journalism and data storytelling - Guardian reading the riots
An online games to shift perspective on a social problem - Financial Times Uber Story
Content analysis to map trends - Nesta analysed creative skills in job adverts
Issue mapping online - networks of websites and people on Twitter - Warwick University Issue Mapping

Structured Interviews

When you want to gain a broad range of perspectives about specific questions

Also consider

Semi-structured interviews

A conversation with a set structure (a script of fixed questions) and specific purpose. Can be a method to undertake a survey or called a ‘directed’ interview.

Asking standardised questions across many participants makes data easier to analyse and compare
Giving participants a clear guide about what you want to learn from them
Topics that would be too complex to capture in a questionnaire tick box/short response
Respondents with limited time, who want to consider responses in advance or do not want to write
The quality of the interview is less dependent on the interviewer and their rapport with the interviewee

Limitations (and how to avoid or what to consider instead)

The structure prevents participants from bringing in other ideas (consider semi-structured interviews )
Whilst quicker to conduct and analyse than semi-structured interviews, they are still resource intensive and only possible to do with limited numbers of people (consider questionnaires online - see surveys )

Semi-Structured Interviews

When you want to gain in-depth insights about broad questions

Participant Observation

User research

Focus groups

Semi-Structured interviews

Conversation with a structure (set of open questions) and clear purpose. Also called directed interviews.

Exploring a range of perspectives on research questions, engaging experts and getting buy-in to research
Gaining in-depth insights about how people feel or interpret complex issues
Topics which are sensitive, difficult to express in writing or to articulate views about in a survey
Allowing participants to respond in their words, framing what they see as important

Limitations

Quality can depend on interviewer skills and put people on the spot (consider setting topics in advance)
The set-up affects the quality of engagement and discussion (consider location, relationship with the interviewee and whether you should do a face to face or Telephone/Online interview )
Time consuming to do, analyse and compare (consider Structured Interviews or Focus groups )
Can lack validity as evidence (consider Surveys )
Explore what people say, think and remember, not what they actually do (consider Participant Observation contextual interviews or User Research ) or shared perspectives (consider Focus groups )
Easy to provide too much structure and prevent open exploration of a topic (see unstructured interviews )

Unstructured Interviews

When you want to gain in-depth insights about a complex research topics

Contextual interviews

Unstructured interviews

A loosely structured open conversation guided by research topics (also called non-directed interviews)

Very exploratory research and broad research questions
Letting the participant guide the interview according to their priorities and views
In-depth and broad discussion about a person's expertise, experiences and opinions
Participant can feel like the they are not saying the ‘right’ thing (explain technique and rationale well)
Whilst useful for expert interviews, an unstructured approach can give the impression that the interviewer is unprepared, lacks knowledge or the research purpose is unclear (consider semi-structured interviews )
Interviews are longer, resource intensive and only smaller numbers are possible (consider focus groups )
Generates in-depth insights that are difficult to analyse and compare
A lack of structure can encourage participants to focus in-depth on one thing they are positive about or know very well in-depth (consider using desk research to inform the interview topics)

Guerilla Interviews

When you want to carry out user research or explore general perspectives quickly and easily

An ‘impromptu’ approach to interviewing, often talking to real people on the street or at a key site

Gaining immediate responses to a tool or design and insights into a problem
Informal method means participants can be more relaxed and open
Speaking to a lot of people, simply, quickly and cheaply about one key question
User research and user experience of interacting with digital products
Speaking to people for convenience (users are available in a single place and time) introduces sample bias (but you can add more targeting and profiling of participants, see the Guide to Sampling )
The lack of formal structure can mean that you miss important questions or insights
Findings are often unreliable and not generalisable because they rely on a single type of user
Difficult to understand complexity or gain contextual insights

Telephone / online interviews

A tool for when you want to interview people quickly and easily

Telephone or Online interviews

A tool to conduct an interview (it is not a method in itself) which is not in person/ face to face

Conducting interviews without the costs of travel and meeting time (often shorter)
Expert and stakeholder interviews, when you already know the participant well or they are short of time
Taking notes and looking up information whilst interviewing is less disruptive than in person, easy to record
Sending informed consent information and interview questions in advance
Can be difficult to undertake an engaging interview (hard to build rapport on the phone)
Often need to be shorter and put alongside other meetings

What method are you using?

Structured interviews : When you want to gain a broad range of perspectives about specific questions
Semi-structured interviews : When you want to gain in-depth insights about broad questions
Unstructured interviews : When you want to gain in-depth insights about a complex research topics

Further guides to Interviews : A nice overview here , including how to structure an interview

Contextual Interview

When you want to understand actions and particular experiences in-depth and in context

Ethnography

Interviews conducted with people in a situational context relevant to the research question; also known as contextual inquiry.

Understanding what happens, experiences and emotions whilst interacting with a tool, service or event.
Easier for research participants to show rather than explain, participants are active and engaged
Uncover what happens, what people do, how they behave in the moment, rather than how they remember this and give meaning to these responses later.
Open and flexible method giving depth of insights about a tool or specific interaction
Time and resource intensive for the researcher
Each context is unique - making it difficult to generalise from or to answer broader research questions about experiences (consider semi-structured interviews )
The researcher influences the interactions and events (consider ethnography or participant observation )

When you want to understand shared experiences and different perspectives

Focus Groups

An organised discussion with a group of participants, led by a facilitator around a few key topics

Gaining several perspectives about the same topic quickly
Research contexts and topics where familiarity between participants can generate discussion about similar experiences (or different ones) which may not arise in a one to one interview
When attitudes, feelings and beliefs are more likely to be revealed in social gathering and interactions
Including tasks and creative methods to elicit views (e.g. shared ranking of importance of statements)
Difficult to identify the individual view from the group view (consider semi-structured interviews )
Group dynamics will affect the conversation focus and participation levels of different members
The role of the moderator is very significant. Good levels of group leadership and interpersonal skill are required to moderate a group successfully.
The group set-up is an ‘artificial’ social setting and discussion (consider Participant Observation )

Participant observation

When you want to ‘learn by doing’ and observe social interactions and behaviour

Participant observation/ shadowing

The researcher immerses themselves in lives of participants as an ‘observer’ of their behaviours, practices and interactions. A type of ethnography. The people being observed know about the research.

Understanding everyday behaviours, interactions and practice in the context that they occur
Gaining an intuitive understanding of what happens in practice and what this means for those involved
Allowing research participants to show you what they do, when they can’t describe and remember this well
Establishing topics for further investigation through more structured or focused research methods
If explicit (shadowing for example) the research situation is still ‘artificial’
Your audience may not respect it and can be difficult to generalise from (consider mixed methods)
The quality of the data is dependent on the researchers’ skills and relationships with participants

When you want to experience social practices, interactions and behaviour with minimal influence on what happens

The systematic study of a group of people or cultures to understand behaviours and interactions. The researcher becomes an ‘insider’. It is a way of presenting research findings, as well as a method, which can include participant observation, document analysis and visual methods.

When you need to be an ‘insider’ to fully access the research context (such as organisational cultures)
Presenting how everyday behaviours, interactions and practice occur in context
Gaining an in-depth knowledge of your research context, participants and social relationships
When little is known about a research context or topic
If covert (at a conference or workplace for example) it has implications for informed consent
If explicit (shadowing for example) the researcher’s presence can affect the interactions and findings

Example use case : Ikea At Home research study to understand how people feel about their home

When you want to generate numerical data about the scale of people’s opinions and feelings

Mixed Methods

A process of systematically collecting information from a large number of different people. Responses are summarised as statistics (online surveys automate this analysis for you).

Targeting specific types of research participant and providing data about their views
If designed well, they can be quick, simple and non intrusive for research participants
Findings can have more credibility than other methods because of their breadth
Describing, measuring and understanding (a basic questionnaire)
Statistical analysis, modelling cause and effect (large scale survey designed to represent the population)
Can raise more questions about what happens and why, lack depth of insight (consider mixed methods )
Hard to design well and require a lot of time upfront and data skills to analyse the results
Low completion rates and people feel ‘over surveyed’ (consider incentives )
Assumes people will be honest and sufficiently aware of the research context to provide credible answers.

Further information: A great guide to creating questions here and here , build on existing data/questions here

When one research method cannot fully answer your main research question

Mixed methods

Combining different methods to answer your research questions, can be a mix of quantitative or qualitative methods or both. It may mean working with different types of data, research designs or being part of a research team (covering different research disciplines)

Overcoming the limitation of relying on a single research method or approach
Triangulating findings (i.e. using an additional method) can give them more validity
Accessing different types of research participants
A more holistic understanding about how, why and the extent to which something happens
Answering different types of research questions about frequency and perceptions
Giving findings more validity and influence because of the range of data and insights
Requires a broader range of skills and more time to deliver, analyse and report on
Research design must have strong sequencing (when each method is used and analysed , why) to make the most of a mixed methods approach - not always possible in a tight timescale or short research project

User Research

When you want to learn about people’s needs, behaviours and motivations for using a service

Service Design

S emi-Structured Interviews

Usability testing

A research approach employed to understand users and their needs, motivations and behaviours, primarily to inform service design.

User-centered design processes which look to ensure services meet the needs of their audience
Gaining specific insights into how a person interacts with a digital tool or service
Exploring general needs, behaviours and motivations for a specific target group using a range of services
Focus on a tool or service can prevent wider analysis, relevance and applicability
Research can lack credibility due to small numbers, set up, documentation (often highly specific focus)
Can overlook those who do not use a service for a whole range of reasons

What method?

User research involves any method which looks at who users are, the problems they face, what they are trying to do and how they use existing services. This can create user personas, user journeys and user experience maps. It largely includes qualitative research methods.

When you want to design a service to meet people’s needs, including planning, organising, infrastructure, communication and components)

A research approach employed in the activity of planning and organising of people, infrastructure, communication and material components of a service, in order to improve quality and interaction.

Gaining a holistic picture of all components (infrastructure, people, organisations, culture) affecting how a person interacts with a service
Service design often begins with user research but participants in research include all those involved in delivering (not just using) a service, such as employees and stakeholders in an organisation as well as looking at the context and system which affect how a service works and its effectiveness

Content analysis

When you want to understand public discourse through secondary or online data

A systematic process of classifying and interpreting documents, text or images to analyse key discourses (their meaning) or to quantify patterns (such as word frequencies). This can be done manually or it can be automated.

Exploring the focus of messages, text or imagery and change over time
Secondary data sources, such as archives, online social media data (such as Tweets) and news articles
Gaining a qualitative or quantitative insights about key messages
Focuses on public and documented interpretations of events and experiences
Documents are not exhaustive and not all are accessible (or available online/freely)
Qualitative coding is time intensive to manually classify, reliant on researcher interpretation
Automated coding for key words can miss nuances and difficult to produce meaningful findings

When you want to engage stakeholders in research, generate ideas or codesign solutions

Also consider:

A tool to undertake research. It is an interactive session, often taking a full day, in which research participants sor stakeholders work intensively on an issue or question. The process can combine elements of qualitative research, brainstorming or problem solving.

Engaging stakeholders - building empathy with and understanding of research findings
Understanding problems or prototyping solutions, linked to user research and service design approaches
Participatory research, allowing participants to shape agendas and outcomes
Creative, collaborative and engaging activities to build rapport and understanding with participants
Participatory design, enabling participants to co-design solutions which work for them
Highly dependent on the right people attending and the facilitation skills
Can be a lot of time and effort to coordinate a workshop effectively and analyse findings
The immersive and collaborative environment makes it difficult to document effectively
Collaborative solutions may duplicate existing problems or solutions

When you want to test prototypes or learn about problems with an existing service

A user research method where you watch participants try to complete specific tasks using your service. Moderated testing involve interaction with the research participant, asking them to explain what they are doing, thinking and feeling. Unmoderated testing is completed alone by the participant.

Identify any usability issues with a digital service - for example, problems with the language or layout
Seeing if users understand what they need to do in order to complete designated tasks
Generating ideas to improve a prototype of existing digital service
Assessing user experience
Focus is not on ‘natural’ use (consider contextual interviews , participant observation , ethnography )
Data is about a specific design and interaction with a tool at that moment
Findings cannot be generalised or applicable more broadly to understand users and behaviours

Chapter 20. Presentations

Introduction.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a qualitative study is conducted, but it is not presented (in words or text), did it really happen? Perhaps not. Findings from qualitative research are inextricably tied up with the way those findings are presented. These presentations do not always need to be in writing, but they need to happen. Think of ethnographies, for example, and their thick descriptions of a particular culture. Witnessing a culture, taking fieldnotes, talking to people—none of those things in and of themselves convey the culture. Or think about an interview-based phenomenological study. Boxes of interview transcripts might be interesting to read through, but they are not a completed study without the intervention of hours of analysis and careful selection of exemplary quotes to illustrate key themes and final arguments and theories. And unlike much quantitative research in the social sciences, where the final write-up neatly reports the results of analyses, the way the “write-up” happens is an integral part of the analysis in qualitative research. Once again, we come back to the messiness and stubborn unlinearity of qualitative research. From the very beginning, when designing the study, imagining the form of its ultimate presentation is helpful.

Because qualitative researchers are motivated by understanding and conveying meaning, effective communication is not only an essential skill but a fundamental facet of the entire research project. Ethnographers must be able to convey a certain sense of verisimilitude, the appearance of true reality. Those employing interviews must faithfully depict the key meanings of the people they interviewed in a way that rings true to those people, even if the end result surprises them. And all researchers must strive for clarity in their publications so that various audiences can understand what was found and why it is important. This chapter will address how to organize various kinds of presentations for different audiences so that your results can be appreciated and understood.

In the world of academic science, social or otherwise, the primary audience for a study’s results is usually the academic community, and the primary venue for communicating to this audience is the academic journal. Journal articles are typically fifteen to thirty pages in length (8,000 to 12,000 words). Although qualitative researchers often write and publish journal articles—indeed, there are several journals dedicated entirely to qualitative research [1] —the best writing by qualitative researchers often shows up in books. This is because books, running from 80,000 to 150,000 words in length, allow the researcher to develop the material fully. You have probably read some of these in various courses you have taken, not realizing what they are. I have used examples of such books throughout this text, beginning with the three profiles in the introductory chapter. In some instances, the chapters in these books began as articles in academic journals (another indication that the journal article format somewhat limits what can be said about the study overall).

While the article and the book are “final” products of qualitative research, there are actually a few other presentation formats that are used along the way. At the very beginning of a research study, it is often important to have a written research proposal not just to clarify to yourself what you will be doing and when but also to justify your research to an outside agency, such as an institutional review board (IRB; see chapter 12), or to a potential funder, which might be your home institution, a government funder (such as the National Science Foundation, or NSF), or a private foundation (such as the Gates Foundation). As you get your research underway, opportunities will arise to present preliminary findings to audiences, usually through presentations at academic conferences. These presentations can provide important feedback as you complete your analyses. Finally, if you are completing a degree and looking to find an academic job, you will be asked to provide a “job talk,” usually about your research. These job talks are similar to conference presentations but can run significantly longer.

All the presentations mentioned so far are (mostly) for academic audiences. But qualitative research is also unique in that many of its practitioners don’t want to confine their presentation only to other academics. Qualitative researchers who study particular contexts or cultures might want to report back to the people and places they observed. Those working in the critical tradition might want to raise awareness of a particular issue to as large an audience as possible. Many others simply want everyday, nonacademic people to read their work, because they think it is interesting and important. To reach a wide audience, the final product can look like almost anything—it can be a poem, a blog, a podcast, even a science fiction short story. And if you are very lucky, it can even be a national or international bestseller.

In this chapter, we are going to stick with the more basic quotidian presentations—the academic paper / research proposal, the conference slideshow presentation / job talk, and the conference poster. We’ll also spend a bit of time on incorporating universal design into your presentations and how to create some especially attractive and impactful visual displays.

Researcher Note

What is the best piece of advice you’ve ever been given about conducting qualitative research?

The best advice I’ve received came from my adviser, Alford Young Jr. He told me to find the “Jessi Streib” answer to my research question, not the “Pierre Bourdieu” answer to my research question. In other words, don’t just say how a famous theorist would answer your question; say something original, something coming from you.

—Jessi Streib, author of The Power of the Past and Privilege Lost

Writing about Your Research

The journal article and the research proposal.

Although the research proposal is written before you have actually done your research and the article is written after all data collection and analysis is complete, there are actually many similarities between the two in terms of organization and purpose. The final article will (probably—depends on how much the research question and focus have shifted during the research itself) incorporate a great deal of what was included in a preliminary research proposal. The average lengths of both a proposal and an article are quite similar, with the “front sections” of the article abbreviated to make space for the findings, discussion of findings, and conclusion.

Figure 20.1 shows one model for what to include in an article or research proposal, comparing the elements of each with a default word count for each section. Please note that you will want to follow whatever specific guidelines you have been provided by the venue you are submitting the article/proposal to: the IRB, the NSF, the Journal of Qualitative Research . In fact, I encourage you to adapt the default model as needed by swapping out expected word counts for each section and adding or varying the sections to match expectations for your particular publication venue. [2]

You will notice a few things about the default model guidelines. First, while half of the proposal is spent discussing the research design, this section is shortened (but still included) for the article. There are a few elements that only show up in the proposal (e.g., the limitations section is in the introductory section here—it will be more fully developed in the conclusory section in the article). Obviously, you don’t have findings in the proposal, so this is an entirely new section for the article. Note that the article does not include a data management plan or a timeline—two aspects that most proposals require.

It might be helpful to find and maintain examples of successfully written sections that you can use as models for your own writing. I have included a few of these throughout the textbook and have included a few more at the end of this chapter.

Make an Argument

Some qualitative researchers, particularly those engaged in deep ethnographic research, focus their attention primarily if not exclusively on describing the data. They might even eschew the notion that they should make an “argument” about the data, preferring instead to use thick descriptions to convey interpretations. Bracketing the contrast between interpretation and argument for the moment, most readers will expect you to provide an argument about your data, and this argument will be in answer to whatever research question you eventually articulate (remember, research questions are allowed to shift as you get further into data collection and analysis). It can be frustrating to read a well-developed study with clear and elegant descriptions and no argument. The argument is the point of the research, and if you do not have one, 99 percent of the time, you are not finished with your analysis. Calarco ( 2020 ) suggests you imagine a pyramid, with all of your data forming the basis and all of your findings forming the middle section; the top/point of the pyramid is your argument, “what the patterns in your data tell us about how the world works or ought to work” ( 181 ).

The academic community to which you belong will be looking for an argument that relates to or develops theory. This is the theoretical generalizability promise of qualitative research. An academic audience will want to know how your findings relate to previous findings, theories, and concepts (the literature review; see chapter 9). It is thus vitally important that you go back to your literature review (or develop a new one) and draw those connections in your discussion and/or conclusion. When writing to other audiences, you will still want an argument, although it may not be written as a theoretical one. What do I mean by that? Even if you are not referring to previous literature or developing new theories or adapting older ones, a simple description of your findings is like dumping a lot of leaves in the lap of your audience. They still deserve to know about the shape of the forest. Maybe provide them a road map through it. Do this by telling a clear and cogent story about the data. What is the primary theme, and why is it important? What is the point of your research? [3]

A beautifully written piece of research based on participant observation [and/or] interviews brings people to life, and helps the reader understand the challenges people face. You are trying to use vivid, detailed and compelling words to help the reader really understand the lives of the people you studied. And you are trying to connect the lived experiences of these people to a broader conceptual point—so that the reader can understand why it matters. ( Lareau 2021:259 )

Do not hide your argument. Make it the focal point of your introductory section, and repeat it as often as needed to ensure the reader remembers it. I am always impressed when I see researchers do this well (see, e.g., Zelizer 1996 ).

Here are a few other suggestions for writing your article: Be brief. Do not overwhelm the reader with too many words; make every word count. Academics are particularly prone to “overwriting” as a way of demonstrating proficiency. Don’t. When writing your methods section, think about it as a “recipe for your work” that allows other researchers to replicate if they so wish ( Calarco 2020:186 ). Convey all the necessary information clearly, succinctly, and accurately. No more, no less. [4] Do not try to write from “beginning to end” in that order. Certain sections, like the introductory section, may be the last ones you write. I find the methods section the easiest, so I often begin there. Calarco ( 2020 ) begins with an outline of the analysis and results section and then works backward from there to outline the contribution she is making, then the full introduction that serves as a road map for the writing of all sections. She leaves the abstract for the very end. Find what order best works for you.

Presenting at Conferences and Job Talks

Students and faculty are primarily called upon to publicly present their research in two distinct contexts—the academic conference and the “job talk.” By convention, conference presentations usually run about fifteen minutes and, at least in sociology and other social sciences, rely primarily on the use of a slideshow (PowerPoint Presentation or PPT) presentation. You are usually one of three or four presenters scheduled on the same “panel,” so it is an important point of etiquette to ensure that your presentation falls within the allotted time and does not crowd into that of the other presenters. Job talks, on the other hand, conventionally require a forty- to forty-five-minute presentation with a fifteen- to twenty-minute question and answer (Q&A) session following it. You are the only person presenting, so if you run over your allotted time, it means less time for the Q&A, which can disturb some audience members who have been waiting for a chance to ask you something. It is sometimes possible to incorporate questions during your presentation, which allows you to take the entire hour, but you might end up shorting your presentation this way if the questions are numerous. It’s best for beginners to stick to the “ask me at the end” format (unless there is a simple clarifying question that can easily be addressed and makes the presentation run more smoothly, as in the case where you simply forgot to include information on the number of interviews you conducted).

For slideshows, you should allot two or even three minutes for each slide, never less than one minute. And those slides should be clear, concise, and limited. Most of what you say should not be on those slides at all. The slides are simply the main points or a clear image of what you are speaking about. Include bulleted points (words, short phrases), not full sentences. The exception is illustrative quotations from transcripts or fieldnotes. In those cases, keep to one illustrative quote per slide, and if it is long, bold or otherwise, highlight the words or passages that are most important for the audience to notice. [5]

Figure 20.2 provides a possible model for sections to include in either a conference presentation or a job talk, with approximate times and approximate numbers of slides. Note the importance (in amount of time spent) of both the research design and the findings/results sections, both of which have been helpfully starred for you. Although you don’t want to short any of the sections, these two sections are the heart of your presentation.

Fig 20.2. Suggested Slideshow Times and Number of Slides

Should you write out your script to read along with your presentation? I have seen this work well, as it prevents presenters from straying off topic and keeps them to the time allotted. On the other hand, these presentations can seem stiff and wooden. Personally, although I have a general script in advance, I like to speak a little more informally and engagingly with each slide, sometimes making connections with previous panelists if I am at a conference. This means I have to pay attention to the time, and I sometimes end up breezing through one section more quickly than I would like. Whatever approach you take, practice in advance. Many times. With an audience. Ask for feedback, and pay attention to any presentation issues that arise (e.g., Do you speak too fast? Are you hard to hear? Do you stumble over a particular word or name?).

Even though there are rules and guidelines for what to include, you will still want to make your presentation as engaging as possible in the little amount of time you have. Calarco ( 2020:274 ) recommends trying one of three story structures to frame your presentation: (1) the uncertain explanation , where you introduce a phenomenon that has not yet been fully explained and then describe how your research is tackling this; (2) the uncertain outcome , where you introduce a phenomenon where the consequences have been unclear and then you reveal those consequences with your research; and (3) the evocative example , where you start with some interesting example from your research (a quote from the interview transcripts, for example) or the real world and then explain how that example illustrates the larger patterns you found in your research. Notice that each of these is a framing story. Framing stories are essential regardless of format!

A Word on Universal Design

Please consider accessibility issues during your presentation, and incorporate elements of universal design into your slideshow. The basic idea behind universal design in presentations is that to the greatest extent possible, all people should be able to view, hear, or otherwise take in your presentation without needing special individual adaptations. If you can make your presentation accessible to people with visual impairment or hearing loss, why not do so? For example, one in twelve men is color-blind, unable to differentiate between certain colors, red/green being the most common problem. So if you design a graphic that relies on red and green bars, some of your audience members may not be able to properly identify which bar means what. Simple contrasts of black and white are much more likely to be visible to all members of your audience. There are many other elements of good universal design, but the basic foundation of all of them is that you consider how to make your presentation as accessible as possible at the outset. For example, include captions whenever possible, both as descriptions on slides and as images on slides and for any audio or video clips you are including; keep font sizes large enough to read from the back of the room; and face the audience when you are.

Poster Design

Undergraduate students who present at conferences are often encouraged to present at “poster sessions.” This usually means setting up a poster version of your research in a large hall or convention space at a set period of time—ninety minutes is common. Your poster will be one of dozens, and conference-goers will wander through the space, stopping intermittently at posters that attract them. Those who stop by might ask you questions about your research, and you are expected to be able to talk intelligently for two or three minutes. It’s a fairly easy way to practice presenting at conferences, which is why so many organizations hold these special poster sessions.

A good poster design will be immediately attractive to passersby and clearly and succinctly describe your research methods, findings, and conclusions. Some students have simply shrunk down their research papers to manageable sizes and then pasted them on a poster, all twelve to fifteen pages of them. Don’t do that! Here are some better suggestions: State the main conclusion of your research in large bold print at the top of your poster, on brightly colored (contrasting) paper, and paste in a QR code that links to your full paper online ( Calarco 2020:280 ). Use the rest of the poster board to provide a couple of highlights and details of the study. For an interview-based study, for example, you will want to put in some details about your sample (including number of interviews) and setting and then perhaps one or two key quotes, also distinguished by contrasting color background.

Incorporating Visual Design in Your Presentations

In addition to ensuring that your presentation is accessible to as large an audience as possible, you also want to think about how to display your data in general, particularly how to use charts and graphs and figures. [6] The first piece of advice is, use them! As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words. If you can cut to the chase with a visually stunning display, do so. But there are visual displays that are stunning, and then there are the tired, hard-to-see visual displays that predominate at conferences. You can do better than most presenters by simply paying attention here and committing yourself to a good design. As with model section passages, keep a file of visual displays that work as models for your own presentations. Find a good guidebook to presenting data effectively (Evergreen 2018 , 2019 ; Schwabisch 2021) , and refer to it often.

Let me make a few suggestions here to get you started. First, test every visual display on a friend or colleague to find out how quickly they can understand the point you are trying to convey. As with reading passages aloud to ensure that your writing works, showing someone your display is the quickest way to find out if it works. Second, put the point in the title of the display! When writing for an academic journal, there will be specific conventions of what to include in the title (full description including methods of analysis, sample, dates), but in a public presentation, there are no limiting rules. So you are free to write as your title “Working-Class College Students Are Three Times as Likely as Their Peers to Drop Out of College,” if that is the point of the graphic display. It certainly helps the communicative aspect. Third, use the themes available to you in Excel for creating graphic displays, but alter them to better fit your needs . Consider adding dark borders to bars and columns, for example, so that they appear crisper for your audience. Include data callouts and labels, and enlarge them so they are clearly visible. When duplicative or otherwise unnecessary, drop distracting gridlines and labels on the y-axis (the vertical one). Don’t go crazy adding different fonts, however—keep things simple and clear. Sans serif fonts (those without the little hooks on the ends of letters) read better from a distance. Try to use the same color scheme throughout, even if this means manually changing the colors of bars and columns. For example, when reporting on working-class college students, I use blue bars, while I reserve green bars for wealthy students and yellow bars for students in the middle. I repeat these colors throughout my presentations and incorporate different colors when talking about other items or factors. You can also try using simple grayscale throughout, with pops of color to indicate a bar or column or line that is of the most interest. These are just some suggestions. The point is to take presentation seriously and to pay attention to visual displays you are using to ensure they effectively communicate what you want them to communicate. I’ve included a data visualization checklist from Evergreen ( 2018 ) here.

Ethics of Presentation and Reliability

Until now, all the data you have collected have been yours alone. Once you present the data, however, you are sharing sometimes very intimate information about people with a broader public. You will find yourself balancing between protecting the privacy of those you’ve interviewed and observed and needing to demonstrate the reliability of the study. The more information you provide to your audience, the more they can understand and appreciate what you have found, but this also may pose risks to your participants. There is no one correct way to go about finding the right balance. As always, you have a duty to consider what you are doing and must make some hard decisions.

The most obvious place we see this paradox emerge is when you mask your data to protect the privacy of your participants. It is standard practice to provide pseudonyms, for example. It is such standard practice that you should always assume you are being given a pseudonym when reading a book or article based on qualitative research. When I was a graduate student, I tried to find information on how best to construct pseudonyms but found little guidance. There are some ethical issues here, I think. [7] Do you create a name that has the same kind of resonance as the original name? If the person goes by a nickname, should you use a nickname as a pseudonym? What about names that are ethnically marked (as in, almost all of them)? Is there something unethical about reracializing a person? (Yes!) In her study of adolescent subcultures, Wilkins ( 2008 ) noted, “Because many of the goths used creative, alternative names rather than their given names, I did my best to reproduce the spirit of their chosen names” ( 24 ).

Your reader or audience will want to know all the details about your participants so that they can gauge both your credibility and the reliability of your findings. But how many details are too many? What if you change the name but otherwise retain all the personal pieces of information about where they grew up, and how old they were when they got married, and how many children they have, and whether they made a splash in the news cycle that time they were stalked by their ex-boyfriend? At some point, those details are going to tip over into the zone of potential unmasking. When you are doing research at one particular field site that may be easily ascertained (as when you interview college students, probably at the institution at which you are a student yourself), it is even more important to be wary of providing too many details. You also need to think that your participants might read what you have written, know things about the site or the population from which you drew your interviews, and figure out whom you are talking about. This can all get very messy if you don’t do more than simply pseudonymize the people you interviewed or observed.

There are some ways to do this. One, you can design a study with all of these risks in mind. That might mean choosing to conduct interviews or observations at multiple sites so that no one person can be easily identified. Another is to alter some basic details about your participants to protect their identity or to refuse to provide all the information when selecting quotes . Let’s say you have an interviewee named “Anna” (a pseudonym), and she is a twenty-four-year-old Latina studying to be an engineer. You want to use a quote from Anna about racial discrimination in her graduate program. Instead of attributing the quote to Anna (whom your reader knows, because you’ve already told them, is a twenty-four-year-old Latina studying engineering), you might simply attribute the quote to “Latina student in STEM.” Taking this a step further, you might leave the quote unattributed, providing a list of quotes about racial discrimination by “various students.”

The problem with masking all the identifiers, of course, is that you lose some of the analytical heft of those attributes. If it mattered that Anna was twenty-four (not thirty-four) and that she was a Latina and that she was studying engineering, taking out any of those aspects of her identity might weaken your analysis. This is one of those “hard choices” you will be called on to make! A rather radical and controversial solution to this dilemma is to create composite characters , characters based on the reality of the interviews but fully masked because they are not identifiable with any one person. My students are often very queasy about this when I explain it to them. The more positivistic your approach and the more you see individuals rather than social relationships/structure as the “object” of your study, the more employing composites will seem like a really bad idea. But composites “allow researchers to present complex, situated accounts from individuals” without disclosing personal identities ( Willis 2019 ), and they can be effective ways of presenting theory narratively ( Hurst 2019 ). Ironically, composites permit you more latitude when including “dirty laundry” or stories that could harm individuals if their identities became known. Rather than squeezing out details that could identify a participant, the identities are permanently removed from the details. Great difficulty remains, however, in clearly explaining the theoretical use of composites to your audience and providing sufficient information on the reliability of the underlying data.

There are a host of other ethical issues that emerge as you write and present your data. This is where being reflective throughout the process will help. How and what you share of what you have learned will depend on the social relationships you have built, the audiences you are writing or speaking to, and the underlying animating goals of your study. Be conscious about all of your decisions, and then be able to explain them fully, both to yourself and to those who ask.

Our research is often close to us. As a Black woman who is a first-generation college student and a professional with a poverty/working-class origin, each of these pieces of my identity creates nuances in how I engage in my research, including how I share it out. Because of this, it’s important for us to have people in our lives who we trust who can help us, particularly, when we are trying to share our findings. As researchers, we have been steeped in our work, so we know all the details and nuances. Sometimes we take this for granted, and we might not have shared those nuances in conversation or writing or taken some of this information for granted. As I share my research with trusted friends and colleagues, I pay attention to the questions they ask me or the feedback they give when we talk or when they read drafts.

—Kim McAloney, PhD, College Student Services Administration Ecampus coordinator and instructor

Final Comments: Preparing for Being Challenged

Once you put your work out there, you must be ready to be challenged. Science is a collective enterprise and depends on a healthy give and take among researchers. This can be both novel and difficult as you get started, but the more you understand the importance of these challenges, the easier it will be to develop the kind of thick skin necessary for success in academia. Scientists’ authority rests on both the inherent strength of their findings and their ability to convince other scientists of the reliability and validity and value of those findings. So be prepared to be challenged, and recognize this as simply another important aspect of conducting research!

Considering what challenges might be made as you design and conduct your study will help you when you get to the writing and presentation stage. Address probable challenges in your final article, and have a planned response to probable questions in a conference presentation or job talk. The following is a list of common challenges of qualitative research and how you might best address them:

Questions about generalizability . Although qualitative research is not statistically generalizable (and be prepared to explain why), qualitative research is theoretically generalizable. Discuss why your findings here might tell us something about related phenomena or contexts.
Questions about reliability . You probably took steps to ensure the reliability of your findings. Discuss them! This includes explaining the use and value of multiple data sources and defending your sampling and case selections. It also means being transparent about your own position as researcher and explaining steps you took to ensure that what you were seeing was really there.
Questions about replicability. Although qualitative research cannot strictly be replicated because the circumstances and contexts will necessarily be different (if only because the point in time is different), you should be able to provide as much detail as possible about how the study was conducted so that another researcher could attempt to confirm or disconfirm your findings. Also, be very clear about the limitations of your study, as this allows other researchers insight into what future research might be warranted.

None of this is easy, of course. Writing beautifully and presenting clearly and cogently require skill and practice. If you take anything from this chapter, it is to remember that presentation is an important and essential part of the research process and to allocate time for this as you plan your research.

Data Visualization Checklist for Slideshow (PPT) Presentations

Adapted from Evergreen ( 2018 )

Text checklist

Short catchy, descriptive titles (e.g., “Working-class students are three times as likely to drop out of college”) summarize the point of the visual display
Subtitled and annotations provide additional information (e.g., “note: male students also more likely to drop out”)
Text size is hierarchical and readable (titles are largest; axes labels smallest, which should be at least 20points)
Text is horizontal. Audience members cannot read vertical text!
All data labeled directly and clearly: get rid of those “legends” and embed the data in your graphic display
Labels are used sparingly; avoid redundancy (e.g., do not include both a number axis and a number label)

Arrangement checklist

Proportions are accurate; bar charts should always start at zero; don’t mislead the audience!
Data are intentionally ordered (e.g., by frequency counts). Do not leave ragged alphabetized bar graphs!
Axis intervals are equidistant: spaces between axis intervals should be the same unit
Graph is two-dimensional. Three-dimensional and “bevelled” displays are confusing
There is no unwanted decoration (especially the kind that comes automatically through the PPT “theme”). This wastes your space and confuses.

Color checklist

There is an intentional color scheme (do not use default theme)
Color is used to identify key patterns (e.g., highlight one bar in red against six others in greyscale if this is the bar you want the audience to notice)
Color is still legible when printed in black and white
Color is legible for people with color blindness (do not use red/green or yellow/blue combinations)
There is sufficient contrast between text and background (black text on white background works best; be careful of white on dark!)

Lines checklist

Be wary of using gridlines; if you do, mute them (grey, not black)
Allow graph to bleed into surroundings (don’t use border lines)
Remove axis lines unless absolutely necessary (better to label directly)

Overall design checklist

The display highlights a significant finding or conclusion that your audience can ‘”see” relatively quickly
The type of graph (e.g., bar chart, pie chart, line graph) is appropriate for the data. Avoid pie charts with more than three slices!
Graph has appropriate level of precision; if you don’t need decimal places
All the chart elements work together to reinforce the main message

Universal Design Checklist for Slideshow (PPT) Presentations

Include both verbal and written descriptions (e.g., captions on slides); consider providing a hand-out to accompany the presentation
Microphone available (ask audience in back if they can clearly hear)
Face audience; allow people to read your lips
Turn on captions when presenting audio or video clips
Adjust light settings for visibility
Speak slowly and clearly; practice articulation; don’t mutter or speak under your breath (even if you have something humorous to say – say it loud!)
Use Black/White contrasts for easy visibility; or use color contrasts that are real contrasts (do not rely on people being able to differentiate red from green, for example)
Use easy to read font styles and avoid too small font sizes: think about what an audience member in the back row will be able to see and read.
Keep your slides simple: do not overclutter them; if you are including quotes from your interviews, take short evocative snippets only, and bold key words and passages. You should also read aloud each passage, preferably with feeling!

Supplement: Models of Written Sections for Future Reference

Data collection section example.

Interviews were semi structured, lasted between one and three hours, and took place at a location chosen by the interviewee. Discussions centered on four general topics: (1) knowledge of their parent’s immigration experiences; (2) relationship with their parents; (3) understanding of family labor, including language-brokering experiences; and (4) experiences with school and peers, including any future life plans. While conducting interviews, I paid close attention to respondents’ nonverbal cues, as well as their use of metaphors and jokes. I conducted interviews until I reached a point of saturation, as indicated by encountering repeated themes in new interviews (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed with each interviewee’s permission, and conducted in accordance with IRB protocols. Minors received permission from their parents before participation in the interview. ( Kwon 2022:1832 )

Justification of Case Selection / Sample Description Section Example

Looking at one profession within one organization and in one geographic area does impose limitations on the generalizability of our findings. However, it also has advantages. We eliminate the problem of interorganizational heterogeneity. If multiple organizations are studied simultaneously, it can make it difficult to discern the mechanisms that contribute to racial inequalities. Even with a single occupation there is considerable heterogeneity, which may make understanding how organizational structure impacts worker outcomes difficult. By using the case of one group of professionals in one religious denomination in one geographic region of the United States, we clarify how individuals’ perceptions and experiences of occupational inequality unfold in relation to a variety of observed and unobserved occupational and contextual factors that might be obscured in a larger-scale study. Focusing on a specific group of professionals allows us to explore and identify ways that formal organizational rules combine with informal processes to contribute to the persistence of racial inequality. ( Eagle and Mueller 2022:1510–1511 )

Ethics Section Example

I asked everyone who was willing to sit for a formal interview to speak only for themselves and offered each of them a prepaid Visa Card worth $25–40. I also offered everyone the opportunity to keep the card and erase the tape completely at any time they were dissatisfied with the interview in any way. No one asked for the tape to be erased; rather, people remarked on the interview being a really good experience because they felt heard. Each interview was professionally transcribed and for the most part the excerpts are literal transcriptions. In a few places, the excerpts have been edited to reduce colloquial features of speech (e.g., you know, like, um) and some recursive elements common to spoken language. A few excerpts were placed into standard English for clarity. I made this choice for the benefit of readers who might otherwise find the insights and ideas harder to parse in the original. However, I have to acknowledge this as an act of class-based violence. I tried to keep the original phrasing whenever possible. ( Pascale 2021:235 )

How to do qualitative research interviewing (CC-BY, 2020)

CC BY is the correct license for this work. Ignore the ones in the slides: use this materials as you like, with attribution. (KW, 02-2020)

Related Papers

Ahmar Mahboob

Elite interviewing is a key qualitative method in political science. Interviews are useful not only for the purposes of political biography or to ascertain the perspectives of those at the centre of the policy-making process, but also because they allow researchers to trace the policy process that underpins key political events. Yet, elite interviews invert much of what social scientists know about power in interviewing. In contrast to interviews with economically or culturally disadvantaged groups, or with those who have not reached intellectual maturation (children, those with mental disabilities), elite interviews present a situation of potential powerlessness for the interviewer. Currently there are many claims made about power within elite interviewing but limited empirical evidence provided to support these claims. This interdisciplinary paper, based on a linguistic analysis of the first 20 minutes of two elite interviews, argues that this purported unequal relationship between disempowered, nebbish academic and reputationally powerful elite cannot be assumed. Based on this analysis, the paper presents a preliminary set of strategies used by both interviewer and interviewees in order to either exercise relative power over one another or to build solidarity with one another. The paper provides detailed examples from the interviews analysed to show how the participants in these interviews adopted various strategies. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications of this work for research based on elite interviews.

Amanda Hunn

Mariana Marin Chacon

Oral History Review v. 38, no. 1 (Winter-Spring 2011): 73-108.

Martha Norkunas

Fisrt Edition 2012 / Second Edition 2023

Anna Madill

Emilia Wąsikiewicz-Firlej

This paper attempts to take a critical look at the narrative interview in order to identify the methodological pitfalls and challenges posed by this widely-applied research tool. It analyses the research process in a project involving sixty-four 3rd year students of applied linguistics at a large university in western Poland in the summer term of the academic year 2018/2019. The project included three stages: (1) interviewing a person from another country studying in Poland about their intercultural experiences; (2) transcribing the interviews and (3) presenting the results of their analysis in the form of a written report. On completion of their assignments, the students were asked to share their reflections on all stages of their research in an anonymous survey study. The questionnaire data was juxtaposed with analysis of the student transcripts and reports in order to identify and compare the student and the teacher perspectives on methodological aspects of narrative research. Th...

The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft

Annika Lillrank

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

In this chapter, I have described different types of interviewing; identified and illustrated in more detail the central techniques of research interviewing (particularly with regard to the semistructured format); and discussed in depth several additional considerations such as design, ethics, recording, and transcription. I hope to have shown that interviewing research can be a rewarding endeavor. Good interviewing, however, is not easy and, in examining the central techniques, I have offered examples of where my own research interviewing could have been better. My technique has improved with practice, though, and my reminder to myself and to my students is that there is never the perfect interview, although there are definitely better and worse instances. I hope also to have shown that interviewing research is at an exciting methodological juncture in that we can no longer be unsophisticated about the status of interviews as data. Creative developments are required that allow interviews to be conducted and analyzed in ways that recognize their situated and coconstructed nature and at the same time are informative on the topic of the research.

Yvette Kopijn

In this article I advocate for a cross-cultural appreciation of the oral history interview and its transcript - most notably when there are differences in race and ethnicity involved between the interviewer and the narrator.

Susan Abbott-Jamieson

RELATED PAPERS

Documentary & Archival Research, edited by Jason Hughes and John Goodwin, SAGE Benchmarks in Social Research Methods Series, SAGE.

Qualitative Research

Guy Itzchakov

The SAGE Dictionary of Qualitative Management Research

Ian Greenwood

Gregor Torkar

Journal of Pragmatics

Neal N. Norrick

ANNE CLARISSE BERMUDEZ

Alexa Hepburn , Jonathan Potter

Jonathan Potter

Dr. John L Adamson

Sofia Lampropoulou

Fady Shanouda , Karen K Yoshida

Interviewing and Representation in Qualitative Research (book)

John Schostak

Sharon Veale

janine van gorp

Dr. Awais H. Gillani

Historical Social Research

Alexander Freund

Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition, edited by Alexis Ramsey et al., Southern Illinois University Press.

Brad Lucas , Margaret Strain

Educational Gerontology

Feliciano Villar

Novita Febriana

Nicole T Cook

M. Mahruf C. Shohel , Man Jia , Rubaiyat Jahan , Goutam Roy

Journal of Art Historiography

Jean Wainwright

Lauriano Salakiaku

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

Keith Ridgway

Communication Methods and Measures

Jessica S Robles

Qualitative Social Work

dorit roer-strier

Jan Blommaert

Aschalew Mekonnen

Marketing Management MBAIU_17

Management International Review

Catherine Welch

Hannah O'Mahoney

George Gavrilis

Sinead Mannion

Brent Laing

Robert Mikecz

behnoush yazdizade

Silvia Haia Antonucci

Maria Elena Solares

Qualitative Inquiry

Karen Thorpe , Susan Danby