The Qualitative ReportVolume 16 Number 2 How To Article .docx

The Qualitative Report
Volume 16 | Number 2 How To Article 13
3-1-2011
How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-
structured Interviews: An Ongoing and
Continuous Journey
Silvia E. Rabionet
Nova Southeastern University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at:
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr
Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and
Historical Methodologies Commons, and
the Social Statistics Commons
This How To Article is brought to you for free and open access
by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion in The
Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of
NSUWorks. For more information, please contact
[email protected]
Recommended APA Citation
Rabionet, S. E. (2011). How I Learned to Design and Conduct
Semi-structured Interviews: An Ongoing and Continuous
Journey. The
Qualitative Report, 16(2), 563-566. Retrieved from
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss2/13
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%

2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campa
ign=PDFCoverPages
ign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr?utm_source=nsuworks.nova.edu%
ign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16?utm_source=nsuworks.nov
a.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&utm
_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss2?utm_source=nsuworks
.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium=PDF&
utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss2/13?utm_source=nsuwo
rks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium=PD
F&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
ign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/423?utm_source=nsu
works.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium=
PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1275?utm_source=ns
uworks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol16%2Fiss2%2F13&utm_medium
=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
mailto:[email protected]
How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-structured
Interviews: An
Ongoing and Continuous Journey

Abstract
Qualitative interviewing is a flexible and powerful tool to
capture the voices and the ways people make
meaning of their experience Learning to conduct semi-structure
interviews requires the following six stages:
(a) selecting the type of interview; (b) establishing ethical
guidelines, (c) crafting the interview protocol; (d)
conducting and recording the interview; (e) crafting the
interview protocol; and (f) reporting the findings. A
researcher's personal journey in crafting an interview protocol
to interview HIV researchers is summarized.
She highlights that training and experience are crucial and
identifies some readings that can help in the
process.
Keywords
Semi-structured Interview, Qualitative Interview, and
Qualitative Methods
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
This how to article is available in The Qualitative Report:
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol16/iss2/13
https://goo.gl/u1Hmes
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

The Qualitative Report Volume 16 Number 2 March 2011 563-
566
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-2/rabionet.pdf
How I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-structured
Interviews:
An Ongoing and Continuous Journey
Silvia E. Rabionet
Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida USA
Qualitative interviewing is a flexible and powerful tool to
capture the
voices and the ways people make meaning of their experience
Learning to
conduct semi-structure interviews requires the following six
stages: (a)
selecting the type of interview; (b) establishing ethical
guidelines, (c)
crafting the interview protocol; (d) conducting and recording
the
interview; (e) crafting the interview protocol; and (f) reporting
the
findings. A researcher’s personal journey in crafting an
interview protocol
to interview HIV researchers is summarized. She highlights that
training
and experience are crucial and identifies some readings that can
help in

the process. Key Words: Semi-structured Interview, Qualitative
Interview,
and Qualitative Methods
There is no doubt that qualitative interviewing is a flexible and
powerful tool to
capture the voices and the ways people make meaning of their
experiences. I am always
fascinated when I read articles and books that make use of the
interviews to convey
findings, messages, and the views of participants regarding a
research topics and
everyday situations. Since I have encountered increasing
number of studies in the health
field in which interviews are used, I decided to learn about the
art and skills needed to use
this powerful tool to explore and investigate the topics that are
relevant to my line of
research. Currently, I am involved in training and supporting
the development of HIV
junior researchers. Mentoring, the development of research
competencies and working
collaboratively are the three major components of the project.
Pursuing a research career
within the context of this project is a very intense experience.
The junior researchers have
many “stories to tell” and “learning to share” about their
journey as researchers in a
sensitive field. As a researcher myself, I would like to capture
their voices and give
meaning (or interpret) to their experience. I decided to use
“interviews” as a tool and
window to their stories. Here is my own ongoing journey of how
I am learning to design
and conduct semi-structured interviews.

Stage 1- Selecting the kind of interview: Why semi-structure
interviews? When I
decided to use interviews, I proceeded to find a good reference
to place the selected
method within the larger qualitative framework. I looked for
existing literature that
expressed the pros and cons of the interview. Some of the
writings that I found were
posted in the internet as resources for graduate students of
different field and disciplines.
I made a list of the pros and cons and of the recommendations
that I though applied to
me. I printed a lot of the list of advices and do’s and don’ts. I
will probably be referring
to them in the future. However, I needed to read the more
conceptual and theoretical
discussions. I wanted to know about the historical evolution. I
came across a chapter
Silvia E. Rabionet 564
written by Andrea Fontana and James Frey in the second edition
of the book Collecting
and Interpreting Qualitative Materials edited by Norman Denzin
and Yvonna Lincoln
(2005). I highly recommend reading this chapter. It introduced
me to many possibilities
under the category of qualitative interviewing. This contributed
to inform my decision.
I selected the semi-structured interview because I was able to
narrow down some
areas or topics that I want to ask to the junior researchers. A

completely un-structured
interview has the risk of not eliciting form the junior
researchers the topics or themes
more closely related to the research questions under
consideration. There are some
specific topics that I would like to cover, but at the same time I
want to hear their stories.
Consequently, I will use the format of an opening statement and
a few general questions
to elicit conversation. I will have some additional questions
designed to probe for
information if it does not come up.
Stage 2 - Establishing the ethical guidelines: I soon learned that
entering the lives
of other, especially the lives of colleagues, had to take into
consideration ethical and
moral issues. The chapter entitled, “Ethical Issues of
Interviewing” in Kvale’s Doing
Interviews (2007), provided an excellent guideline and a useful
list of aspects to consider
throughout the different stages of the interview. I used these
points to discuss my project
with co-investigators and consultants that will conduct the
project with me. Approaching
the more advance stages of research design from a moral and
ethical stance will facilitate
my interaction with the interviewees. Issues of purpose,
consequences, consent, identity,
relationships, confidentiality and protection became central
early in the process. I feel
confident that I will approach my colleagues in a fair and
ethical way.
Stage 3 - Crafting the interview protocol: This stage is the most
time consuming

of all the stages. Many books and articles will tell how to
approach this stage. From my
readings I learned that the interview protocol has two important
components: (a) how do
you (meaning the interviewer) introduce yourself to the person
being interviewed and (b)
what are the questions to be asked. The first component is very
important to establish
rapport, to create an adequate environment, and to elicit
reflection and truthful comments
from the interviewee. Once again, online we can find many lists
of what to do and what
not to do. However, this opening statement has to be carefully
crafted by the researcher to
establish the line of communication that will elicit the “stories.”
I revised many drafts and
come across some very good examples, but nothing is better
than one tailored made for a
particular study. When introducing yourself, the protocol should
include statements of
confidentiality, consent, options to withdraw, and use and scope
of the results.
The second important and central component of this stage is the
development of
the questions and follow-up probes. Nothing is more important
for this stage than a good
grasp of the subject matter. Existing literature and previous
work are the best resources. I
have read more than 50 articles directly and indirectly related to
my area of interest. I
developed the draft of a protocol. To further refine the quality
of the interview protocol I
can seek out consultation from experts in the field and also
experts in qualitative
researchers who have used interviews to provide me with

feedback and guidance. I can
also pilot the interview to help improve my instrumentation.
Other than paying close
attention to the relationship between the questions asked and the
content produced during
the interviews, I also need to reflect on whether or not the
questions are perceived by the
interviewees as being respectful and culturally sensitive.
565 The Qualitative Report March 2011
This stage is crucial to assure the quality. A well planned
protocol should have a
positive impact in the next three stages of the interview process.
Kvale’s Doing
Interviews (2007) was also a great resource for this stage in that
he provides not only a
helpful overview, but also includes further readings as
guidance.
Stage 4 - Conducting and recording the interview: There are
many ways of
recording interviews. The most commonly used are notes
written at the time, notes
written afterwards, audio recording, and video recording. The
literature recommends
audio recording above all the other methods. In reading about
this stage, I came across a
number of issues that seem common but one that I would not
have necessarily taken into
account. These include: the quality of the recording equipment

and its electronic
capabilities, the actual setting, the gender of the interviewer,
the familiarity between
interviewer and interviewee, among others. Issues like this
made me aware of the
importance of attending to these details in my pre-interview
planning. As was the case for
the previous stage, Kvale’s Doing Interviews (2007) can be
great resource for this stage
too.
Stage 5 - Analyzing and summarizing the interview: I believe
that this is the area
in that I need more help. I know that I will be overwhelmed by
the amount of
“conversation” or “data” collected in the interviews. Managing
and organizing it will be a
challenge for me. I am not at this stage yet. So far, I am in the
process of identifying good
sources of information. I have developed a plan to develop my
skills which include:
evaluating existing qualitative data analysis software, meetings
with researchers who
have analyzed semi-structured interviews, practicing with
existing interview data that my
colleagues have agreed to share, and reading more about this
stage.
Stage 6 - Reporting the findings: I am not at this stage yet;
however, I have been
preparing for it. I have read a vast amount of articles related to
my topic of interest in
which qualitative methods have been used. Some of these
authors have used interviews
while others have used personal histories or reflections. The
experiences in the pursuit of

a research career seem to have some commonalities that I am
starting to see in those
articles. I believe that knowing the qualitative body of
knowledge about the topic will
help me in the final stages of writing and reporting findings.
I am aware of issues such as disclosure, consequences and
trustworthiness when
reporting the findings. In order to systemically and formally
learn about and address
those issues, I recommend reading the following: Wolcott’s
2001 book Writing Up
Qualitative Research and Gilgun’s 2005 article “Grab and Good
Science: Writing Up
Results of Qualitative Research.”
In summary, I have delineated the six stages that I believe that
should be followed
when learning about conducting semi-structured interviews. For
each stage I provided at
least one reference that I used to learn more about the selected
method of data collection.
It should be noted that consulting with experts in the field and
practicing became
essential to my learning. As I advance through the stages, it has
become very evident to
me that this is a continuous journey. Good qualitative study
based on semi-structured
interviews relies on the knowledge, skills, vision and integrity
of the researcher doing
that analysis. Training and experience are crucial for this
endeavor (Dingwall, Murphy,
Watson, Greatbatch, & Parke, 2002).

Silvia E. Rabionet 566
References
Dingwall, R., Murphy, E., Watson, P., Greatbatch, D, & Parke,
S. (1998). Catching
goldfish: Quality in qualitative research. Journal of Health
Services Research
Policy, 3, 167-172.
Fontana, A., & Frey J. (2003). The interview: From structured
questions to negotiated
texts. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and
interpreting qualitative
materials (2nd ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gilgun, J. F. (2005). “Grab” and good science: Writing up
results of qualitative research.
Qualitative Health Research, 15, 256-262.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001) Writing up qualitative research (2nd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Author Note

Dr. Silvia E. Rabionet received her Doctor of Education Degree
from Harvard
University Graduate School of Education (2002). She joined
NSU-College of Pharmacy
in November 2007 as an associate professor in the Socio-
Behavioral and Administrative
Pharmacy Department. Prior to joining Nova Southeastern
University College of
Pharmacy (COP), she was an associate professor in health
education and health
promotion and the University of Puerto Rico-Graduate School
of Public Health. She still
maintains her affiliation to the University of Puerto Rico. At
NSU, she has been part of a
faculty team responsible for developing a research unit,
infrastructure and scholarship in
socioeconomic and behavioral factors related to medication
access and use. She is mainly
involved in three areas of scholarship: HIV/Health Disparities
Research Development
and Mentoring, Socio-behavioral Aspects of Pharmacy, and
History of the Health
Sciences. Currently, she directs the Investigators Development
Component of the Puerto
Rico Comprehensive Center for the Study on HIV Disparities
funded by NIH-RCMI and
the Puerto Rico Mentoring Institute for HIV and Mental Health
Research funded by
NIHMH. These initiatives provide comprehensive support to
junior researcher, including:
mentoring, methodological skills development, and multi-
institution networking. NSU is
a partner in this initiative. She can be contacted at Nova
Southeastern University, 3200

South University Drive, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33328-2018;
Phone: 954 262-1095; Email:
[email protected]
Copyright 2009: Silvia E. Rabionet and Nova Southeastern
University
Article Citation
Rabionet, S. E. (2009). How I learned to design and conduct
semi-structured interviews:
An ongoing and continuous journey. The Qualitative Report,
16(2), 563-566.
Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR16-
2/rabionet.pdf
The Qualitative Report3-1-2011How I Learned to Design and
Conduct Semi-structured Interviews: An Ongoing and
Continuous JourneySilvia E. RabionetRecommended APA
CitationHow I Learned to Design and Conduct Semi-structured
Interviews: An Ongoing and Continuous
JourneyAbstractKeywordsCreative Commons LicensePersonal,
Thorough, and Accessible: A Review of Carla Willig’s
Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology
The Qualitative Report
Volume 17 | Number 42 Teaching and Learning 3
10-15-2012
Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting
Interviews: Tips for Students New to the Field of

Qualitative Research
Stacy A. Jacob
Slippery Rock University, [email protected]
S. Paige Furgerson
Texas Tech University
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr
Part of the Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and
Historical Methodologies Commons, and
the Social Statistics Commons
This Teaching and Learning is brought to you for free and open
access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been
accepted for inclusion
in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of
NSUWorks. For more information, please contact
[email protected]
Recommended APA Citation
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing Interview
Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for Students New to
the Field of
Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17(42), 1-10.
Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3
ign=PDFCoverPages
ign=PDFCoverPages
ign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17?utm_source=nsuworks.nov

a.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol17%2Fiss42%2F3&utm_medium=PDF&utm
_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42?utm_source=nsuwork
s.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol17%2Fiss42%2F3&utm_medium=PDF
&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
ign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/423?utm_source=nsu
works.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol17%2Fiss42%2F3&utm_medium=
PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/1275?utm_source=ns
uworks.nova.edu%2Ftqr%2Fvol17%2Fiss42%2F3&utm_medium
Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips
for Students
New to the Field of Qualitative Research
Abstract
Students new to doing qualitative research in the ethnographic
and oral traditions, often have difficulty
creating successful interview protocols. This article offers
practical suggestions for students new to qualitative
research for both writing interview protocol that elicit useful
data and for conducting the interview. This piece
was originally developed as a classroom tool and can be used by
professors teaching qualitative research in

conjunction with academic readings about qualitative
interviewing.
Keywords
Qualitative Interviewing, Interviewing Tips, New Researchers,
Students, Professors
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
This teaching and learning is available in The Qualitative
Report: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol17/iss42/3
The Qualitative Report 2012 Volume 17, T&L Art. 6, 1-10
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/jacob.pdf
Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews:
Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative Research
Stacy A. Jacob
Slippery Rock University, Pennsylvania USA

S. Paige Furgerson
Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas USA
Students new to doing qualitative research in the ethnographic
and oral
traditions, often have difficulty creating successful interview
protocols.
This article offers practical suggestions for students new to
qualitative
research for both writing interview protocol that elicit useful
data and for
conducting the interview. This piece was originally developed
as a
classroom tool and can be used by professors teaching
qualitative
research in conjunction with academic readings about
qualitative
interviewing. Keywords: Qualitative Interviewing, Interviewing
Tips, New
Researchers, Students, Professors
The field of qualitative research is broad and not only
“crosscuts disciplines,
fields, and subject matters” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 2), but
also utilizes a myriad of
means to collect data. Creswell (2007) asserts that while there
are several kinds of data,
all data falls into four basic categories, “observations,
interviews, documents, and
audiovisual materials” (p. 129). Researchers may use many
different techniques, but at

the heart of qualitative research is the desire to expose the
human part of a story. In her
book, The Art of Storytelling, Nancy Mellon (1998) states,
“Because there is a natural
storytelling urge and ability in all human beings, even just a
little nurturing of this
impulse can bring about astonishing and delightful results” (p.
174). As qualitative
researchers interested in the ethnographic and oral history
traditions of the field, we
collect people’s life stories in order to study various aspects of
the human experience and
the primary way we gather stories is by interviewing people.
When we interview, we ask
people to share their stories. Honing interview skills helps us
nurture people through the
storytelling process. Skilled interviewers can gain insight into
lived experiences, learn
the perspectives of individuals participating in a study, and
discover the nuances in
stories. Often people who lean toward qualitative research are
interested in listening to
stories within their own context, but helping graduate students
learn to ask the right
questions to elicit these stories can be difficult.
Every year, both of us teach at least one class in which we ask
graduate students
to research and write a qualitative piece. Most of the students
in our classes have never
completed such a project from beginning to end and one of the
places that they often
stumble is in collecting rich and relevant data through
interviews. Fontana and Frey
(2000) point out this difficulty by asserting, “Asking questions
and getting answers is a

much harder task than it may seem at first” (p. 645). Because of
the difficulty our
students often have, we advocate that first time qualitative
researchers use interview
protocols to assist them in collecting data. An interview
protocol is more than a list of
2 The Qualitative Report 2012
interview questions; it also extends to the procedural level of
interviewing and includes a
script of what you will say before the interview, script for what
you will say at the
conclusion of the interview, prompts for the interviewer to
collect informed consent, and
prompts to remind the interviewer the information that she or he
is interested in
collecting. Interview protocols become not only a set of
questions, but also a procedural
guide for directing a new qualitative researcher through the
interview process.
In our classes we start with having our students read assigned
research articles on
the interview process. These pieces are not transparent to the
first-time researcher.
Because of this issue, we developed a series of lessons to
address the students’ disconnect
between reading the literature on qualitative interviewing and
conducting an actual
interview. First, we have our students turn in questions they
create for their study. We,
then, provide our students with suggestions for how to

strengthen these questions. After
the students have a good set of questions, we then ask them
write down and script what
they will say before the interview begins, and after the
interview ends. During the
scripting process we also help our students develop a consent
form. Finally, we put all
the pieces together to create an interview protocol. Eventually
through guidance, the
students’ initial questions become a springboard for writing the
interview protocol they
will use in their study. The following advice is adapted from
both lectures and our work
with students as we guide them through both writing dynamic
interview protocols and
conducting interviews.
Writing Successful Interview Protocols
1. Pick a topic that is interesting to you.
We often have students who choose topics in which they are not
interested.
Sometimes students think one issue will be easier to research
than another, professors
prefer certain projects, or they are doing group work and get
talked into something that
does not interest them. Whatever the case, when you have a
choice of a research topic,
choose something that peaks your curiosity. When you are
interested your project will be
fun, invigorating, and will seem easy because you enjoy
working on it. When you are not

interested, your project will seem hard or time consuming and
risks a lack quality
because of your lack of interest. So, if you are interested in
what people think about dirt
and your professor approves the project, go for it. When we
find the topics we love, it
makes research fun.
2. Research should guide your questions.
Before even writing the first question, you should know what
the research
literature says about the people you are studying. In some
cases, there will be lots of
research; in others, you will find little to nothing and will have
to read the research on
similar populations. Using research to guide your questions
means that you have done a
thorough review of the literature and that you know what other
scholars say about the
people you are studying. Knowing the research leads to
developing questions that are
grounded in the literature, that differ from what previous
research says, and that still need
to be answered. It also helps you focus or narrow your
questions in ways that will create
Stacy A. Jacob and S. Paige Furgerson 3
meaningful data. Let’s say you are interested in millennial
generation college students.

If you consult the literature you will learn millennial students
“are likely to appreciate
clear expectations, explicit syllabi, and well-structured
assignments” (Wilson, 2004, p.
65). Knowing this piece of information about the population
might lead you to develop
an interview protocol which asks millennial generation college
students about what they
think about the “rules” of the college classroom.
3. Use a script for the beginning and end of your interview.
Before beginning to interview develop a script to guide the
process. There will be
lots of important information that you will want to share with
each of your participants,
and without a script you are likely to forget something. In the
beginning of the interview,
the script should prompt you to share critical details about your
study such as what you
are studying and why you are studying it. It should remind you
to explain the notion of
informed consent and direct you to have the participant sign the
statement of informed
consent. The script should provide wording that will help you
alleviate any concerns the
participant might have about confidentiality. You may also
want to use the script as your
reminder for telling the interviewee a little about yourself in
order to begin building
rapport. At the end of the interview, going back to the script
can help you remember to
provide your contact information and to relay to the interviewee
that there may be a

subsequent contact if there is a need for you to clarify
information, ask additional
questions, or perform member checking or “soliciting feedback
from one’s respondents
on the inquirer’s findings” (Schwandt, 1997, p. 88).
4. Questions should be open ended.
We understand this piece of advice seems fairly obvious, but we
continually have
several students who turn in questions that are closed- ended. A
closed-ended question
can only result in one of two answers—yes or no. These types
of questions will not allow
the interviewee to offer you any additional information. The
goal of qualitative research
is to uncover as much about the participants and their situations
as possible and yes or no
questions stop the interviewee before getting to the “good
stuff”. While you could ask,
“Are there things I would want to know about developing a
good interview protocol?
What?” A better way to ask that question is, “Tell me about the
things I might want to
know to create a successful interview protocol.”
5. Start with the basics.
Ask your interviewee basic background data about her/himself
(things like name,
where they grew up, etc.) as a way of warming up your
participant. You want to build

trust between you and your interviewee as you collect important
background data. You
should look to the literature to help you decide what
background data is important to
collect. For instance, if you are doing a study about how
African American women make
decisions about college, you will want to consult college choice
literature as you decide
what background information you need to collect. If the
literature says the type of high
school a student attended significantly impacts student college
choice, you will want to
ask about the student’s high school.
6. Begin with easy to answer questions and move towards ones
that are more difficult
or controversial.
Arrange questions in order from those that are least difficult or
contentious to
those that are most difficult. The idea, again, is to slowly build
confidence and trust with
the interviewee. In other words, you would not want to start
with a big, probing, “high
stakes” question like, “Have you ever been date raped?”
Chances are if you do, your
interviewee will withdraw. If you are interested in learning
something about this topic,

you might instead begin with a question like, “Tell me about the
ways that people have
taken advantage of you in college.”
7. The phrase “tell me about…”is great way to start a question.
The phrase “tell me about” is not only an invitation for the
interviewee to tell you
a story, but also it assumes that the interviewee will talk and it
subtlety commands the
interviewee to begin talking. Also the phrase “tell me about”
makes it almost impossible
to create a question that is too complicated, too detailed, or too
difficult to answer. It
keeps the question general enough that the interviewee can take
the question in several
directions and leaves room for ideas, impressions, and concepts
which you have not
thought of to emerge from the data.
8. Write big, expansive questions.
Qualitative research is all about the materialization of
unexpected data from your
participants and writing big, expansive questions allows the
participant to take your
question in several directions. When you write big questions
your participant will might
say things that you would have never thought to ask and often
those things become one of
the most important parts of your study. Also, writing lots of
small, detailed questions
does not allow the interview to freely flow from your

interviewee, but rather makes it a
choppy back and forth between you and the participant. For
instance, if you want to
know several things about a participant’s background it is better
to say, “Tell me about
your background” than, “What is your age? What is your race?
Where did you go to high
school?” By saying, “Tell me about your background” you allow
the interviewee to talk
uninterrupted. When they are finished you can prompt them to
talk about anything they
missed that you want to know.
9. Use prompts.
As a qualitative researcher conducting interviews, you should
both trust your
instincts and be ready for surprises. Creating probes or prompts
for each question helps
keep you on track. Prompts also help to remind you of your
questions while at the same
time allowing for unexpected data to emerge. To use prompts
effectively, you must first
design a broad question (as mentioned in tip # 8) that might
take an interviewee in several
different directions. Directly under this question, you should
design bullet points that
remind you of areas that have emerged from the literature or

things you think will enrich
your data. Using the above example of, “Tell me the ways in
which people have taken
advantage of you in college.” You might list the following
probes as bullets:
academically, friendship-wise, sexually, etc. In essence, you
ask the general question, let
the interviewee talk in any direction, and then use your prompts
to get at pre-planned
specifics they did not mention.
10. Be willing to make “on the spot” revisions to your
interview protocol.
Many times when you are conducting interviews a follow up
question may pop
into your mind. If a question occurs to you in the interview ask
it. Sometimes the “ah-
ha” question that makes a great project comes to you in the
moment. You should learn to
trust your instincts in interviews; yet, not let them lead you too
far down a tangential path
that is not useful to what you are studying. Being willing to
make adjustments in the
interview also allows for the design of the study to emerge as
you conduct research. If
you go off book from the interview protocol, you may find
something interesting that you
did not expect. You can add the new question to the remainder
of your interviews if you
find that the information you uncovered in your current
interview is useful. Emergent
design (Creswell, 2007) is one of the hallmarks of qualitative
research and sticking to
your interview protocol exactly does not allow for the design to

emerge naturally as you
conduct research.
11. Don’t make the interview too long.
Remember that you are asking people to both share their stories
and their time
(usually without compensation). Asking someone to devote
more than an hour and half
of their time can become problematic for several reasons.
Pragmatically you are less like
to get people to agree to be interviewed, if you plan a long
session. Also you should
consider who you are interviewing. What if you subject is
elderly or sick? They may tire
easily. What if you are interviewing children? They may lose
interest quickly. You
might find that it is more appropriate to arrange two to three
shorter interviews than
conduct one longer one. Think about your participants and who
they are as you design
the length of your interview. It should be noted that six to ten
well-written questions can
easily take an hour to an hour and a half to get through.
12. Practice with a friend.
Do your questions make sense? Do other people understand
what you are trying
to ask? It is always a good idea to pilot test your questions with
someone you know to
make sure that your questions are clear. After doing so, find a
couple of people that are

close to the population you wish to study. If you are studying
female, college bound,
high seniors during their college choice process you could to
talk to female, high school
juniors who plan on going to college to further pilot test your
questions. Pilot testing
your questions with close population, will allow you talk with
someone who may provide
important insider information that can make your interview
protocol work better without
squandering the population you wish to interview.
13. Make sure that you have set up a second shorter interview
to help you clarify or
ask any questions you missed after you have transcribed the
interview.
Once you read over the transcribed interview, you may not
understand what was
said or what your interviewee meant and a second shorter
interview lets you clear up
anything that you do not understand. It is important to
remember that by design, the
nature of qualitative research is emergent. If you are
interviewing several people what
happens if the third person says something you wish you had
asked the first and second
interviewee? A second and shorter interview also gives you the

chance to ask early
interviewees questions that may have arisen in later interviews.
Finally, once you have
interviews transcribed you can send the interviewee a copy of
the transcript so that you
can conduct a member check. At the time of the second
interview you can also ask the
participant if she or he agrees with any ideas you have
surrounding the interpretation of
what you are studying.
14. If needed, clear your project with your school’s
Institutional Research Board
(IRB).
The IRB process is often referred to as “Human Subjects” by
professors and
researchers and is the office that clears any research done on
human beings or human
subjects. The purpose of this office is to protect people who
serve as the subjects for
research. Going through the IRB process gives both you and
your institution assurance
that you are not harming the people you study. The IRB process
varies from institution
to institution. For instance, some schools require IRB for all
types of qualitative
interviews; some exclude oral history from the IRB process.
While most schools do not
require students to clear projects that are not meant for
publication, it is in your best
interest to understand the IRB process at your school.
A good interview protocol is essential to getting the best

information from the
participants in your study; however, a good protocol does not
ensure that you will have a
successful interview. In our experiences we have learned that
there are several things
you can do to ensure the interview runs smoothly. In addition
to making sure that the
procedural part of doing an interview works, it is also
imperative to try to make good
connections with the people you interview. Making good
connections means people
share more of their story with you and as a result you get better
data. If you do not make
good connections, listen, or allow yourself to become distracted
in an interview, you run
the risk of not getting the real story and your research will be
incomplete at best.
Conducting good interviews is hard work and students who want
to do qualitative
research should be prepared to do the work of connecting to
other people. The following
advice is meant to help first qualitative researchers conduct
successful interviews.
Tips for the Interview
1. Start with your script.

You developed the script so that you do not inadvertently
neglect sharing
important information with your interviewee. While you do not
need to read the script
word for word, it is important that you have it in front of you
and you follow it carefully.
Even if you are on your twentieth interview, you should follow
the script. The
information the script provides to the participant helps them
understand their rights as a
person being studied and it ensures that you conduct your
research in an ethical manner.
2. Collect consent.
Collecting consent should be a part of your beginning script.
Do not proceed with
your interview without collecting it. Give your participant
plenty of time to read through
the form and ask as many questions about consent as she or he
needs to ask. Your
interviewee understanding that you will hold their confidence
and that they may
withdraw from the study at any time is an important aspect of
building their trust in you.
If they trust you, they will share their experiences with you. If
your respondent does not
wish to sign the consent form, do not conduct the interview and
do not attempt to compel
them to grant consent. Simply thank them for their time, leave
them your information,
the consent form, information about the study, and let them

know if they change their
mind, you would be happy to interview them at a later date.
3. Use some type of recording device and only take brief notes
so you can maintain eye
contact with your interviewee.
Nothing can ruin getting to know a person faster than being
more interested in
getting the notes right than looking the person you are talking
to in the eye. It is
important to note that by choosing to rely on a recording device
rather than hand written
notes, means that you should both make sure that your
equipment is in working order and
make sure you have back up plans, if the equipment fails. Do
you have a set of fresh
batteries or a plug with you? If you are using cassette tapes, do
you have extra ones?
Did you do a “testing 1-2-3” check to make sure the device is
recording before you
begin? Do you have a second recording device in the case that
the first one fails?
4. Arrange to interview your respondent in a quiet, semi-
private place.
Coffee shops and restaurants are convenient and it is usually
easy to have a
conversation, but these locales usually have too much
background noise to produce a
quality recording. If you cannot understand what is on your

recording device later, it is
not of use to you. Also, these types of locales can be highly
distracting for both you and
the respondent. Therefore it is important to choose a locale in
which a quality recording
can be made. Libraries are generally excellent spots to conduct
interviews. They are
usually easy to get to, have good parking, and are quiet, safe,
and non-threatening. In
addition, libraries tend to have places you and your respondent
can tuck into for
conversations that require some privacy.
5. Be sure that both you and the interviewee block off plenty of
uninterrupted time for
the interview.
Blocking off time means no distractions. Clear your schedule,
turn off your cell
phones, and make sure to block more time than you will
probably need. What happens if
the respondent starts into a story that is the best part of the
interview and you have
scheduled yourself too tightly? No one should need to rush off
to another meeting
because you did a poor job of scheduling. It is your job as the
interviewer to make sure
that both the respondent understands you do not want

distractions and she or he has a
realistic expectation for how long the interview may last.
6. Have genuine care, concern, and interest for the person you
are interviewing.
In our fast-paced, largely self-focused world people rarely listen
openly and fully
to others. When you as the interviewer are interested, your
respondents can sense it and
will respond by sharing more about themselves than you might
have expected. So look
your respondent in the eye, listen intently, and find out what is
interesting about them. It
may seem a bit magical when you realize how much good
listening helps people open up
and share their lives with you.
7. Use basic counseling skills to help your interviewees feel
heard.
The counseling profession is constantly thinking about how to
become better
listeners who can help clients share their stories and many of
the techniques they employ
are quite useful to qualitative researchers as they work with
their respondents. It is worth
your time to read a basic book on counseling techniques so that
you may learn how to
become a good listener with whom people feel comfortable
sharing their stories.
Learning skills such as attending and reflection (Conte, 2009)

coupled with
understanding nonverbal behavior help people understand that
you are not only listening,
but you are also understanding what they say. When people feel
heard and understood,
they are more likely to share.
8. Keep it focused.
Sometimes a respondent strays too far from the question you
asked. In some
instances, this detour may prove fruitful as it may help you
discover things that you did
not think to ask. In other instances, it may become apparent
that either your respondent
misunderstood the question or she or he is on a non-useful
tangent. Remember that you
are in control of the interview and if your interviewee veers off
too much, you can bring
them back. The prompts you built into your interview protocol
will help you keep the
interview on-track; use them to make sure you get the
information you need.
9. LISTEN! LISTEN! LISTEN!

Seriously, close your mouth and listen! It is important to
remember that while
you are getting to know your interviewee you should not let
your experiences overtake
theirs. While it is fine to share things about yourself to build
trust and get the
conversation going, you are working to understand someone
else’s life experiences. If
you talk too much, you may miss the best part of the story, so
work hard to listen to your
respondent. Truly listening to another person is one of the
hardest things to do. Most
people are so busy composing what they will say next that they
never fully listen. Close
off that part of your mind that is thinking about how the
interview is going, what you will
have for lunch, and all of the things that need to get done this
week—listen and you will
be rewarded with many great stories.
10. End with your script.
Just as the beginning script contains important information that
your respond
needs, so does your ending script. Do not skip letting people
know how you will proceed
from here and what they can expect after the interview. Again,
you do not need to read
this script word for word, but it is important to have it in front
of you and to follow it
carefully.

Conducting qualitative research can be exciting for both the
seasoned researcher
and the new researcher alike. When others open up their lives
for us to investigate, it is a
gift for both the speaker who is heard and for the listener who
learns something from the
investigation. As qualitative researchers who conduct
interviews we are privileged to be
able to do research by talking to others, and we hope that our
tips help students new to
the method conduct interviews that are interesting and lead to
new understanding about
the human condition. Researchers need people’s stories for
many reasons. They help us
describe people, explain phenomena, and can lead to
improvement in many fields of
study. When we faithfully nurture other people’s stories, not
only our separate fields of
study, but also the field of qualitative research can be enriched
by what we learn.
References
Conte, C. (2009). Advanced techniques for counseling and
psychotherapy. New York,
NY: Springer Publishing Company, LLC.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design:
Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Introduction: The

disciple and practice of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 2-28). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2000). The interview: From
structured questions to negotiated
text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research
(2nd ed., pp. 645-672). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Mellon, N. (1998). The art of storytelling. Rockport, MA:
Element Inc.
Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of
terms. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Wilson, M. E. (2004). Teaching, learning and millennial
students. In M. D. Coomes & R.
DeBard (Eds.), Serving the millennial generation (pp. 59-71).
New Directions for
Student Services, no. 106. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Author Note

Stacy A. Jacob is an Assistant Professor of Student Affairs in
Higher Education at
Slippery Rock University. She has a Ph.D. from Indiana
University in higher education, a
M.A from the University of New Orleans in educational
administration, and a B.A. from
Austin College in communication arts. Her research interests
include the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning (SoTL), college choice, and higher
education history. She may
be contacted at Stacy A. Jacob, Assistant Professor, Student
Affairs in Higher Education,
015 Carruth-Rizza Hall, Slippery Rock University, Slippery
Rock, Pennsylvania 16057;
Phone: 724-738-2758; Email: [email protected]
S. Paige Furgerson was an Assistant Professor in Curriculum
and Instruction at
Texas Tech University. Currently she teaches 4th grade at
Roscoe Wilson Elementary in
Lubbock, Texas. She enjoys researching her own practice and
conducting teacher
research with a focus in the area of professional development.
Copyright 2012: Stacy A. Jacob, S. Paige Furgerson, and Nova
Southeastern
University
Article Citation
Jacob, S. A., & Furgerson, S. P. (2012). Writing interview
protocols and conducting

interviews: Tips for students new to the field of qualitative
research. The
Qualitative Report, 17(T&L Art, 6), 1-10. Retrieved from
http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR17/jacob.pdf
mailto:[email protected]�The Qualitative Report10-15-
2012Writing Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews:
Tips for Students New to the Field of Qualitative ResearchStacy
A. JacobS. Paige FurgersonRecommended APA CitationWriting
Interview Protocols and Conducting Interviews: Tips for
Students New to the Field of Qualitative
ResearchAbstractKeywordsCreative Commons LicenseAuthor
NoteCopyright 2012: Stacy A. Jacob, S. Paige Furgerson, and
Nova Southeastern University
Cleveland State University
[email protected]
Business Faculty Publications Monte Ahuja College of Business
1-1-2012
A Structural Guide To In-Depth Interviewing In
Business And Industrial Marketing Research
Elad Granot
Cleveland State University, [email protected]
Thomas Brashear Alejandro
University of Massachusetts - Amherst
Paulo Cesar Motta
Pontificia Catolica Universidade do Rio De Janeiro

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/bus_facpub
Part of the Marketing Commons
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
Publisher's Statement
This is the Author Accepted Manuscript version of A Structural
Guide To In-Depth Interviewing In
Business and Industrial Marketing Research, published in the
Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 27, 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621211257310
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the
Monte Ahuja College of Business at [email protected] It has
been accepted for
inclusion in Business Faculty Publications by an authorized
administrator of [email protected] For more information, please
contact
[email protected]
Original Published Citation
Granot, E., Brashear, T.G., & Motta, P.C. (2012). A structural
guide to in-depth internviewing in business and industrial
marketing
research. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 27(7),
547-553. doi:10.1108/08858621211257310
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu?utm_source=engagedsch
olarship.csuohio.edu%2Fbus_facpub%2F122&utm_medium=PD
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/bus_facpub?utm_source
=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fbus_facpub%2F122&utm_
medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/bus?utm_source=engage
dscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fbus_facpub%2F122&utm_medium
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/bus_facpub?utm_source
=engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fbus_facpub%2F122&utm_

medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/638?utm_source=eng
agedscholarship.csuohio.edu%2Fbus_facpub%2F122&utm_medi
um=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages
http://library.csuohio.edu/engaged/
A structural guide to in-depth interviewing in
business and industrial marketing research
Elad Granot
Department of Marketing, Cleveland State University,
Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Thomas G. Brashear
Department of Marketing, University of Massachusetts Amherst
– Eugene M. Isenberg School of Management, Amherst,
Massachusetts, USA, and
Paulo Cesar Motta
Pontificia Catolica Universidade do Rio de Janeiro – IAG
Business School, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – The authors aim to present a structural guide for data
collection in a participant-oriented, B2B context.
Design/methodology/approach – A three-stage interview process
following the work of Seidman is presented, along with key
issues on how to
plan, structure, and execute a B2B interview-based hermenuetic
ethnographic study.
Research limitations/implications – The framework presented in
this paper provides strong theoretical foundation for further

theory development in
global industrial marketing research and managerial cognition
research. However, given the conceptual nature of the research,
empirical scrutiny and
further conceptual and empirical research are required.
Originality/value – There is a serious gap in the literature when
addressing the issue of B2B contextual studies, focusing on
managers, manufacturers,
and various other professional personnel.
Keywords Qualitative methods, In-depth interviewing,
Hermeneutics, Phenomenology, Ethnography, Research
methods, Interviews
Paper type Technical paper
Introduction
In the marketing academic community in general, and in B2B
research in particular, the dominant scientific method is one-
sided and predominantly utilizes the deductive hypotheses-
testing approach (Hunt, 2002). In any research situation, it is
vital that the “problem” dictate the selection of a
methodology adopted, rather than the reverse where the
methodology must adapt itself to the “problem” While
statistical data are considered to be most useful when there is
a need to identify the specific magnitude of a problem or issue

(Dervin and Clark, 1987), qualitative data are of greater value
in the identification of underlying causes, as well as the
understanding of the processes. In a discipline as applied as
marketing, qualitative methods enable a deeper
understanding of behavior, rather than a shallow
representation of intentions. This paper is based on the
tenet that interpretive methodologies are appropriate to cope
with market strategy formation in dynamic market settings.
Hence, we provide a structural tool for researchers who
consider a methodology that seeks to elicit information
regarding both the needs and motivations of the participants
and potential uses of the resource that is being investigated, as
a means of informing and providing support to researchers
and practitioners.
In conducting qualitative exploratory marketing studies,
Fournier and Mick (1999) advocate serving a provocative role
in mature research by distancing from historically dominant
paradigms to question, revitalize, and redirect research along
emergent lines. They suggest that data collection and analysis

be performed with careful attention given to sociocultural and
personal lived experiences, thus allowing for representation of
context and meaning in participants’ experiences. However,
this application of a hermeneutic phenomenology is usually
found in studies about consumers, as opposed to managers
and other professionals who more typically represent
participants in a B2B context. A qualitative study, in any
variation (B2B or B2C), is fundamentally exploratory in
nature (Seidman, 1998). If, indeed, research aims to better
understand a phenomenon, the qualitative paradigm is more
efficient and inherently designed to provide an initial
groundbreaking, theory-building explanation (Woodside and
Wilson, 2003).
The challenge in B2B marketing research is in how to
incorporate ethnographic storytelling into the discipline.
Participant narratives can be utilized to distill a richer
understanding of that which is to be investigated. We
therefore answer the call to advance the hermeneutical

framework (Arnold and Fischer, 1994) by providing it with an
applied extension for B2B research. The principal objective
here is to provide a guide for applied data collection for
achieving deeper sense-making of what happened and why it
happened – including how participants interpret outcomes of
what happened and the dynamics of emic and etic sense-
making.
As a grounding theoretical framework, we adopt theories
developed by cognitive anthropologists such as Strauss and
Quinn (1997), D’Andrade (1981), Colby (1996) and Tyler
(1969). Hermeneutic phenomenology, as interpreted by Van
Manen (1990) and developed by Shütz and Luckman (1973),
is used as a theoretical knowledge base. Most importantly, in-
depth interviewing, as described and prescribed by Seidman
(1998), is adapted into a B2B marketing research context.
Although these forms of inquiry are diverse (Spiegelberg,
1982, pp. 1-19; Zaner and Ihde, 1973, pp. 333-74), there
exist within these diversities some fundamental and shared
principles, which form its basic “infrastructure”. These
principles include an interest in understanding the
phenomena of interest from the “inside”, in the study of the
life world, in comprehending the meaning of everyday
experiences and in providing trustworthy insights of our
“social” world. As the concept is used here, hermeneutic
phenomenological human science is interested in the human
world as we find it in all its diverse aspects. Unlike other
research approaches in marketing that may make use of

experimental or artificially created test situations, our
approach to human science wishes to meet human beings –
participants – where they are naturally engaged in their
worlds.
This paper is also based on the epistemological premises
that B2B markets are socially constructed and thus that
business market players and entities enact their environments
(Starbuck, 1982; Weick, 1979; Strati, 1998; Sutcliffe and
Huber, 1998). We propose that researchers should therefore
employ a methodology that enables the study of participants’
cognitions and changes in these cognitions. Our aim is to
grasp the processes of the formation of participant preferences
and how these preferences dictate behavior. We begin with a
brief overview of the framework for an interview-based B2B
phenomenological ethnography. This is followed by an
explication of the three-stage interview process. The next
sections focus on key issues in the interview process, the
length of the three-stage process, the validity of the process,
and the practice of interviewing. The hermeneutic data
collection section provides a guide with various
recommendations on the appropriate application of the
three-stage interview process. The paper ends with
conclusions and final comments focusing on the
maintenance of the structure and possible methodological
flexibility in the proposed process.
B2B phenomenological ethnography
While interpretive methods have long been accepted as valid
and efficient in consumer research, B2B research, with its
inherent relevance to managers, has not shared this
acceptance. However, we contend that most discovery-
oriented projects’ goals (especially if they are B2B) dictate
the use of ethnographic, phenomenological interviewing over
more structured approaches to inquiry. By permitting an

understanding of the subjective meanings of participants’
lived professional experiences, the technique is better suited
for establishing validity of research propositions.
In addition, an interpretive research approach is
appropriate for more actionable and more relevant
prescriptions to managers (Starkey and Madan, 2001). In
fact, interpretive research methods allow for explanations that
are highly contextualized and that lead to actionable
recommendations and prescriptions, a characteristic that is
crucial to business markets. That way, an interpretive
methodology might be one of the pillars that help bridge the
so-called relevance gap (Starkey and Madan, 2001; Weick,
2001) between academic theories and managerial practice. As
early as 1973, Jackson Grayson phrased the problem of lack of
relevance in the following way:
. . . management science has grown so remote from and
unmindful of the
conditions of “live” management that it has abdicated its
usability. [. . .]
Managers and management scientists are operating as two
separate cultures,
each with its own goals, languages, and methods (Grayson,
1973, p. 41).
Researchers can use a variety of techniques to collect data. A
marketing researcher may choose to observe the experience of
individuals who make up an organization or carry out a
process. Social abstractions can be understood through the
experiences of the individuals who work and live upon which
the abstractions are built (Ferrarotti, 1981). For instance,
despite a great deal of research on B2B issues, very little has
involved the perspective of the retailers, managers,
consultants, advertisers, agents, corporate buyers,

employees, salespeople, stakeholders, product designers, and
customer service representatives, whose individual and
collective experience constitutes how the market comes to
understand these issues.
A researcher who wants to understand the dynamics of
contemporary B2B market elements may decide to examine
personal and institutional documents, make observations,
explore history, conduct experiments and distribute
questionnaires. If, however, the researcher’s goal is to
understand the meaning participants make of their personal
and professional experience, then interviewing provides a
more effective way of inquiry.
The fitness of a research method depends on the intention
of the research and the questions being asked (Locke, 1989).
For a question such as “How do managers behave in this
company?”, participant observation might be adequate. If the
question is “How does the marketing orientation of a
company correlate with overall management attitude?” then
a survey may be appropriate. If there is interest in
understanding whether a new product design affects
corporate procurement policies, then a quasi-experimental,
controlled study might be effective. However, research
interests are not always so precise. In many cases, there are
multiple levels and as a result, multiple methods may need to
be in use.
Phenomenological ethnographic interviewing enables an
understanding of participants’ thought processes, values,
aspirations, and professional and life stories in context. In-
depth interviewing leads to a more conscious awareness of the
power of the social and organizational context of people’s
experience. Interviewing provides a deeper understanding of
the issues, structures, processes, and policies that permeate
participants’ stories. It gives a fuller appreciation of the

complexities and difficulties of change. In-depth interviewing
is an approach which attempts to study the “lived experience”
(Seidman, 1998), or the “‘Life-world,’ [. . .] the world as
participants immediately experience it pre-reflectively rather
than as they conceptualize, categorize, or reflect on it’ (Schütz
and Luckmann, 1973; Husserl, 1982).
The purpose of in-depth interviewing is to explore the
experience of others and the meaning they make of that
experience (Seidman, 1998). Interviews are especially
beneficial when motivated to provide “thick descriptions”
(Geertz, 1973; Sanday, 1979, Woodside and Wilson, 2003),
when the main objective is to achieve deep understanding of
participant thought paths and decisions. In order to distill a
deeper meaning, the observer needs to understand the
behavior in context. A basic assumption in in-depth
interviewing research is that the meaning people make of
their experience affects the way they carry out that experience.
This is especially important in a B2B context. Observing
managers only provides access to their behavior. Having them
fill in surveys restricts their ability to both provide personal
input and make meaning of their experiences. However,
interviewing allows us to put their behavior in context and to
understand their actions.
Some marketing questions are best addressed in a narrative
form. Consider an interest in learning what it is like for a
brand manager to perform her job, what her experience is,
and what meaning she makes of that experience: Schutz
(1967) defines this type of understanding as “subjective
understanding”, exploring the subject’s perspective. This type
of information may be collected by interviewing.
The method called interviewing covers a wide array of

practices. At one end of the continuum are tightly structured
formats, survey interviews with preset, standardized, normally
closed questions. At the other end, are open-ended,
unstructured, anthropological interviews that some (e.g.
Spradley, 1979) describe as friendly conversations. We
propose an adaptation to a marketing context of what
Seidman (1998) calls in-depth, phenomenologically based
interviewing. The method combines life-history interviewing
(Bertaux, 1981) and focused, in-depth interviewing informed
by assumptions drawn from phenomenology, specifically from
Alfred Schutz (1967).
We prefer an interview approach that consists of a
combination of theoretical positions, where interviewers for
the most part use open-ended questions. Their major task is
to build upon and explore the responses of participants to the
interviewer’s questions. The goal is to have participants
reconstruct their experiences relevant to the topic. This
method is suitable to almost any issue involving the
experience of contemporary people (Seidman, 1998), and
seems the most appropriate for B2B studies.
Creswell (1998) describes the procedure that is followed in
a phenomenological approach to be undertaken in a natural
setting where the researcher is an instrument of data
collection who gathers words or pictures, analyzes them
inductively, focuses on the meaning of participants, and
describes a process that is expressive and persuasive in
language (p. 14).
Creswell (1998) presents the procedure in a
phenomenological ethnography as follows:
1 The researcher begins (the study) with a full description
of his or her own experience of the phenomenon (p. 147).

2 The researcher then finds statements (in the interviews)
about how individuals are experiencing the topic, lists out
these significant statements (horizonalization of the data)
and treats each statement as having equal worth, and
works to develop a list of non-repetitive, non-overlapping
statements (p. 147).
3 These statements are then grouped into “meaning units”:
the researcher lists these units, and he or she writes a
description of the “textures” (textural description) of the
experience – what happened – including verbatim
examples (p. 150).
4 The researcher next reflects on his or her own description
and uses imaginative variation or structural description,
seeking all possible meanings and divergent perspectives,
varying the frames of reference about the phenomenon,
and constructing a description of how the phenomenon
was experienced (p. 150).
5 The researcher then constructs an overall description of
the meaning and the essence of the experience (p. 150).
6 This process is followed first for the researcher’s account
of the experience and then for that of each participant.
After this, a “composite” description is written (p. 150).
Interestingly, the above process overlooks the crucial step of
data collection and conducting interviews. It is for this reason
that we found it necessary to modify Seidman’s (1998) Three
Interview Series Model utilizing Van Manen’s (1991)
conceptualization of hermeneutic-phenomenology to offer a
structure that provides their practicality, coherence, and sense
of creativity and their structured forms. Our approach, not

unlike Seidman’s (1998), is one which favors the specific
articulation and importance of context; the need for the
development of creative approaches and procedures when
implementing research studies, (which should be uniquely
suited to both the project and the individual researcher); and
an understanding and awareness of “self” within the context
of the study limitations.
The three-stage interview
Seidman’s model of in-depth, phenomenological interviewing
involves conducting a series of three separate interviews with
each participant. Schuman (1982) designed the series of three
interviews, which allows the interviewer and participant to
investigate the experience and to place it in context. The first
interview establishes the context of the participants’
experience. The second allows participants to reconstruct
the details of their experience within the context. The third
interview extracts participants to reflections on the meaning
they associate with the experience. For practical issues such as
accessibility and time constraints, we have adapted the
structure to a single interview whose stages are loosely
structured around three main issues (“How did you get
here?”, “What is it like being you?”, “What meaning do you
make of it?”) within the contextual subject being researched.
Understanding context is essential to exploring the meaning
of an experience (Patton, 1989). Participants’ behavior
becomes meaningful and understandable when placed in the
context of their personal and professional lives and the lives of
those around them.
Interview stage 1: focused life history in context: “How
did you get here?”
In the first stage, the task is to put the participant’s experience
in context. This is done by asking the interviewee to relate as

much as possible about him or herself in light of the topic.
Within the context of their life history, avoid asking “Why did
you become a . . . [whatever the subject may be]?”. Instead,
ask how they came to be in their present contextual position.
By answering “how?” participants reconstruct a variety of
constitutive events (Seidman, 1998) in their past experience
that place their position in the subject of interest within the
context of their lives. The first interview stage serves a
secondary purpose of enabling the hermeneutic meaning-
making within the participant. Especially in B2B contexts,
where the participant is typically in her office and work
surroundings, the “buy-in” of the situation is crucial for both
participants and researchers.
Interview stage 2: the actual experience: “What is it like
being you?”
The purpose of the second stage is to focus on the specific
details of the participants’ present experience in the topic area
of the study. Participants are asked to reconstruct these
details. Participants are not asked for opinions but rather the
details of their experience, participants might be asked to
reconstruct a day in the context of the subject of interest. It is
this second stage where the researcher gains the most insight
into the participants’ lived experience. As informative as the
academic and extant literatures are, it is to be expected that
this stage of the interview will expose new elements that are
participant-specific.
Interview stage 3: reflection on the meaning: “What
does it mean to you?”
In the third stage, participants are asked to reflect on the
meaning of their experience. Because reflection clarifies and

deepens understanding, participants often will provide deeper
insights into the reasons for their decisions and actions than
expressed earlier. This permits participants to learn what they
really believe and feel related to the topics covered in the
study (Wilson and Woodside, 2001). The question of
“meaning” is not one of satisfaction or reward; rather, it
addresses the intellectual and emotional connections between
the participants’ involvement in the research subject and life.
The question might be phrased, “Given what you have said
about your life before you became a creative director in an
advertising agency and given what you have said about being
one now, how do you understand being one in your personal
and professional life? What sense does it make to you?”. This
question may take a future orientation; for example, “Given
what you have reconstructed, what do you see yourself doing
in the future?”. Making sense requires that the participants
look at how the factors in their lives interacted to bring them
to their present situation (Seidman, 1998). It also requires
that they look at their present experience in detail and within
the context in which it occurs. The combination of exploring
the past to clarify the events that led participants to where
they are now, and describing the concrete details of their
present experience, establishes conditions for reflecting upon
what they are now doing in their lives. The third stage can be
productive only if the foundation for it has been established in
the first two.
Even though it is in the third stage that researchers focus
on, the participants’ understanding of their experience is
reflected in all three stages. The process of putting experience
into language is a meaning-making process (Vygotsky, 1987).
When participants are asked to reconstruct details of their
experience, they are selecting events from their past and
imparting meaning to them in interview stage 3. Focus is
given to the research question in context, and the process of
making meaning becomes the center of attention.

Length of interviews
To accomplish the purpose of each of the three stages,
Schuman (1982) used a 90-minute format. An hour carries
with it the consciousness of a standard unit of time, two hours
seems too long to sit at one time. Given that the purpose of
this approach is to have the participants reconstruct their
experience, put it in the context of their lives, and reflect on
its meaning, anything shorter than 90 minutes seems too
short. It is important that the length of time be decided before
the interview begins.
The participants have a stake in the time allocation.
Especially in a B2B study, these are busy people who must
know how to schedule their lives. An open-ended time period
can produce undue anxiety (Seidman, 1998). At times it may
be appealing to go beyond the 90 minutes as the participant
addresses interesting issues. Although one might gain new
insights by going beyond the agreed time, usually a situation
of diminishing returns sets in.
Limiting interview time helps interviewers sharpen their
skills. If interviewers are dealing with a large number of
participants, they need to schedule their interviews so that
they can finish one and go on to the next. As they begin to
work with the immense amount of material that is generated
in in-depth interviews, they will appreciate having allotted a
limited amount of time to each (Seidman, 1998).
Validity and reliability
Every aspect of the structure, process, and practice of
interviewing can be directed toward the goal of minimizing
the interaction effect between researcher and participant.

Interaction between data gatherers and participants is
inherent in the nature of interviewing. It is also inherent in
most other research methodologies, despite the sophisticated
measures developed to control for it (Campbell and Stanley,
1963). One major difference between qualitative and
quantitative approaches is that researchers address the role
of the instrument, the human interviewer. Rather than view
the interaction as a negative, Seidman (1998) states that the
interviewer can be a smart, adaptable, flexible instrument,
able to respond to situations with skill, tact, and
understanding. Only by recognizing that interaction and
affirming its possibilities, can interviewers use their skills to
minimize the distortion (Patton, 1989) that can occur. The
three-stage interview structure incorporates features that
boost validity. It places participants’ comments in context,
reduces opportunities for idiosyncrasies and checks for
internal consistency. By interviewing a number of
participants, experiences can be compared and connected.
Hermeneutic data collection: interviewing
techniques
The ability to interview is not innate. Researchers can learn
techniques and skills of interviewing. The following is a
compilation of “best practices” from Seidman (1998),
McCracken (1988), and Wolcott (1981). Interviewers can
keep track of how well they are following these guidelines by
listening to the interview tapes and reviewing the transcripts.
This will ensure a continuous improvement in their skills.
Listen more, talk less
Listening is the most important skill in interviewing.
Interviewers must listen on at least three levels. First, they
must listen to what the participant is saying. They must
concentrate on the substance to make sure that they
understand it and evaluate whether what they are hearing is

as detailed and complete as they would like it to be. They
must concentrate so that they internalize what participants
say.
On a second level, interviewers must listen for what George
Steiner (1978) calls “inner voice”. An outer, or public, voice
always reflects an awareness of the audience. It is guarded, a
voice that participants would use if they were talking to a large
audience. Interviewers need to search for ways to get to the
inner voice. By taking participants’ language seriously,
without making them feel defensive about it, interviewers
can promote a level of contemplation more characteristic of
the inner voice.
On a third level, interviewers must listen while remaining
aware of the process as well as the substance. They must be
conscious of time, aware of the flow and attentive to the
purpose. They must also be sensitive to the participant’s
energy level and any nonverbal cues he or she may be offering.
Interviewers must stay alert for cues about how to move the
interview forward as necessary.
This type of active listening (Seidman, 1998) requires
concentration and focus beyond what we usually do in
everyday life. It requires that we restrict our normal instinct to
talk, but be ready to provide a directional correction when it is
needed.
Active listening is facilitated with tape-recordings and field
notes (Wolcott, 1990). Working notes help interviewers
concentrate on what the participant is saying. They help
keep interviewers from interrupting. A good way to appraise
listening skills is to transcribe an interview tape. If the

interviewer is listening well, his part will be short among the
longer paragraphs of the participant’s responses.
Finally, ask only real questions. A real question is one which
the interviewer does not already know or anticipate the reply.
Rather than ask questions that have anticipated responses, it
is recommended that the interviewer make a statement and
then ask the participant to react.
Follow-up and clarification questions
When interviewers talk in an interview, they usually ask
questions. The key to asking questions is to let them follow
from what the participant is saying (Seidman, 1998).
Although the interviewer comes with a basic question that
establishes the focus of the interview, the researcher also is
responsible for asking follow-ups, asking for clarifications, and
to move the interview forward by building on what the
participant has begun to share.
It is hard work to understand everything. Sometimes the
context or a reference is not clear. In everyday conversation,
we can let some things slide, but in interviewing such sliding
undermines the process. One question establishes the context
for the next. Not having understood something in an early
stage, might cause the interviewer to miss the significance of
something said later. In addition, asking for clarification
shows that the interviewer is listening.
It is important to understand experiences in the context of
time. A question like “Can you tell me again when that
happened?” is reasonable. Use the word again, to suggest that
you were just not attentive enough the first time around.
Interviewers should ask questions when discussion seems
incomplete or vague.
Most importantly, avoid interrupting participants when

they are talking. While the participant continues talking, write
down the key concept and follow up later, when doing so will
not interrupt the participant’s storyline.
Avoid leading questions
A leading question is one that influences the direction the
response will take. Sometimes the lead is in the intonation.
Sometimes it is in the wording, or the syntax, as when an
interviewer asks, “Did you really mean to do that?”.
Sometimes the lead is in the conclusion implied by the
question.
Ask open-ended questions
An open-ended question establishes the area to be explored
while allowing participants to take any direction they want. It
does not suppose an answer. There are at least two types of
open-ended questions that are relevant. One is what Spradley
(1979) calls the “grand tour” question (pp. 86-7), in which
the interviewer asks the participant to reconstruct a significant
segment of an experience. For example, in interviewing a
salesperson, an interviewer might say “Take me through a day
in your job”. There is also the mini-tour, in which the
interviewer asks the participant to reconstruct the details of a
more limited time span of a particular experience. For
example, an interviewer might ask a participant to talk about
a particular selling experience.
A second type of open-ended question focuses more on the
subjective experience of the participant than on the external
structure. A participant might begin to talk about her
experience in a sales negotiation. After asking her what
happened, the interviewer might ask her to talk about what
that experience was like for her. When interested in
understanding the participant’s subjective experience,
interviewers should often try asking the question, “What

was that like for you?”. As Schutz (1967) indicated, it is not
possible to experience what the participant experienced. The
closest we can come is to ask the metaphorical question
implied in the word “like”. When interviewers ask what
something was like for participants, they are giving them the
opportunity to reconstruct their experience according to their
own sense of what was important, unguided by the
interviewer (Yow, 1994).
Ebbs, flows, and focus
Keep participants focused on the subject of the interview. If
they start discussing experiences out of sequence, guide them
back to the topics of the current interview. The interviewer
must avoid a power struggle, but exercise enough control so
that participants respect the structure and individual purpose
of each of the three stages. Throughout the interview stages,
especially in the first two, ask for concrete details of a
participant’s experience before exploring attitudes and
opinions. The concrete details constitute the experience, the
foundation of the interview.
Ebbs and flows in interviews are natural. In-depth
interviewing may surprise participants because they may not
have had the opportunity to talk at length to someone outside
their social circle. As a result, they may become so engaged in
the first stage that they share personal details and feel
vulnerable (Spradley, 1979). Interviewers find that
participants may retract at the second stage and be less
willing to share as much as before. The researcher must be
careful not to press too hard for the type of sharing they
experienced before. The third stage allows participants to find
a zone of sharing within which they are comfortable, and
resolve the issue for themselves.
Participant reconstructing versus remembering
Avoid asking participants to rely on their memories. As soon

as interviewers ask if people remember something,
impediments to memory pop up (Tagg, 1985). Ask
participants not to remember their experience but rather to
reconstruct it. Ask directly “What happened?” or “What was
your first encounter with that supplier like?” instead of “Do
you remember what your first encounter with that supplier
was like?”. Interviewers can assume that participants will be
able to reconstruct their experience and thus avoid many of
the possible impediments to memory. In a way, all recall is
reconstruction (Thelen, 1989). In interviewing, it is better to
strive for reconstruction as directly as possible.
Use an interview guide cautiously
Some forms of interviewing depend on an interview guide
(Yow, 1994.) The interviewer arrives with preset questions to
which she wants answers or about which she wants to gather
data. This is not appropriate for in-depth interviewing, which
is designed to explore experiences and the meanings attached
to them. The questions most used in an in-depth interview
follow from what the participant has said. Nonetheless, in-
depth interviewers may want to develop an interviewing
guide. The basic structure of the interview is the question that
establishes the focus of each stage in the interview. However,
interviewers never come into an interview situation as clean
slates. They have interests, or they would not have chosen the
research topic they did. In addition, some participants will
require more prompting than others to go forward in the
reconstruction of their experience. Moreover, over the course
of a number of interviews, the interviewer may notice that
several participants have highlighted a specific issue, and the
interviewer may want to know how other participants have
responded to that issue. If interviewers decide to use an
interviewing guide, they must avoid manipulating their

participants to respond to it. Interviewers should ask
questions that reflect areas of interest to them in an open
and direct way, possibly acknowledging that the question
comes more from their own interest than from what the
participant has said. Interviewers must try to avoid imposing
their own interests on the experience of the participants.
Interviewers working with an interview guide must allow for
the possibility that what may interest them or other
participants may be of little interest to the person being
interviewed. Interview guides are useful but must be used
with caution.
Silence
Interviewers sometimes get impatient and uncomfortable with
silence. Be patient; give the participant time to reflect.
However too much silence leads to uneasiness so as in other
aspects of interviewing, there is a delicate balance between
jumping in too soon with a question and waiting too long in
silence. It is important to give your participant space to think,
reflect, and add to what he or she has said (Seidman, 1998).
This may take a second or two for some participants and 30
seconds for others.
Conclusion and final comments
The truly effective question flows from an interviewer’s
concentrated listening, and purpose in moving forward.
Sometimes an important question will start out as an
imprecise instinct which takes time to develop. Sometimes
the effective question reflects the interviewer’s own groping
for understanding. Effective questioning is bound by context.
The most important personal characteristic interviewers must
have is a legitimate interest in other people and their stories.
Seidman (1998) stresses the importance of adhering to the
three-part structure. Each stage serves a purpose both by itself

and within the series. Sometimes, in the first stage, a
participant may start to tell an interesting story about his or
her present situation; but that is the focus of the second stage.
It is tempting, because the information may be interesting, to
pursue the participant’s lead and forsake the structure of the
interview. To do so, however, can wear down the focus of each
stage and the interviewer’s sense of purpose. Each stage
comprises a large number of decisions that the interviewer
must make. The open-ended, in-depth inquiry is best carried
out in a structure that allows both the participant and the
interviewer to maintain a sense of focus of each interview
stage in the series. Each stage provides a foundation of detail
that helps illumine the next. Taking advantage of the
interactive and cumulative nature of the sequence of the
stages requires that interviewers stick to the purpose of each.
There is a logic to the stages, and to lose control of their
direction is to lose the power of that logic and the benefit from
it (Seidman, 1998). In the process of implementing the three
stage interview, the interviewer must maintain a balance
between providing enough openness for the participants to
tell their stories and enough focus to allow the interview
structure to work (McCracken, 1988). As much as you try,
maintaining the structure might not always be possible. The
next section discusses possible alternatives in such situations.
Researchers will have reasons for exploring alternatives to
the structure and procedures that we describe. As long as a
structure is maintained that allows participants to reconstruct
and reflect upon their experience within the context of their
lives, alterations to the three-stage interview structure and the
duration of interviews can certainly be explored. Too extreme
a bending of the form may result in failure to realize the
original intent. As yet, there are no absolutes in the world of
interviewing (Seidman, 1998).
Every research method has its limits and its strengths. In-

depth interviewing leads to a deeper understanding and
appreciation of the intricacies and coherence of people’s
experiences. It leads to a more conscious awareness of
environmental context. Most important, researchers gain an
appreciation for the value of story telling and for the
participants who live the stories.
The narratives we shape from the participants are
necessarily limited. Their lives go on; our presentations of
them are framed and reified. As illuminating as in-depth
interviews can be we still have to allow considerable tolerance
for uncertainty.
References
Arnold, S.J. and Fischer, R. (1994), “Hermeneutics and
consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21,
June, pp. 55-70.
Bertaux, D. (Ed.) (1981), Biography and Society: The Life
History Approach in the Social Sciences, Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, CA.
Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963), “Experimental and
quasi-experimental design for research in teaching”,
in Gage, N.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching,
Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 171-246.
Colby, B. (1996), “Cognitive anthropology”, in Levinson, D.
and Ember, M. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology,
Vol. 1, Henry Holt & Co., New York, NY, pp. 209-14.
Creswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry and Research
Design:

Choosing among Five Traditions, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
D’Andrade, R. (1981), “The cultural part of cognition”,
Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, pp. 179-95.
Dervin, B. and Clark, C. (1987), ASQ: Alternative Tools for
Information Need and Accountability Assessments by Libraries,
published by Peninsula Library Systems for the California
State Library, Sacramento, CA.
Ferrarotti, F. (1981), “On the autonomy of the biographical
method”, in Bertaux, D. (Ed.), Biography and Society:
The Life History Approach in the Social Sciences, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 19-27.
Fournier, S. and Mick, D.G. (1999), “Rediscovering
satisfaction”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 5-23.
Geertz, C. (1973), “Thick description: toward an interpretive
theory of culture”, The Interpretation of Cultures, Basic
Books, New York, NY, pp. 3-30.
Grayson, D.K. (1973), “On the methodology of faunal
analysis”, American Antiquity, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 432-9.
Hunt, S.D. (2002), Foundations of Marketing Theory: Toward a
General Theory of Marketing, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY.
Husserl, E.G.A. (1982), Ideas Pertaining to a Pure
Phenomenology and to A Phenomenological Philosophy: First
Book, (trans, by Kersten, F.), Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Locke, L. (1989), “Qualitative research as a form of scientific
inquiry in sport and physical education”, Research Quarterly
for Exercise and Sport, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 1-20.

McCracken, G. (1988), The Long Inter view, Sage
Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Patton, M.Q. (1989), Qualitative Evaluation Methods, 10th ed.,
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Sanday, P.R. (1979), “The ethnographic paradigm(s)”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 527-38.
Schuman, D. (1982), Policy Analysis, Education, and Everyday
Life, Heath, Lexington, MA.
Schutz, A. (1967), The Phenomenology of the Social World,
(trans. by Walsh, G. and Lenhert, F.), Northwestern
University Press, Chicago, IL.
Schütz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1973), The Structures of the
Life-world, Northwestern University Press, Evanston, IL.
Seidman, I. (1998), Interviewing as Qualitative Research,
Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
Spiegelberg, H. (1982), The Phenomenological Movement,
Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht.
Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, New York, NY.
Starbuck, W.H. (1982), “Congealing oil: inventing ideologies
to justify acting ideologies out”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 3-27.
Starkey, K. and Madan, P. (2001), “Bridging the relevance
gap: aligning stakeholders in the future of management
research”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 12, Special

Issue, pp. S3-S26.
Steiner, G. (1978), “The distribution of discourse”,
On Difficulty and Other Essays, Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 61-94.
Strati, A. (1998), “Organizational symbolism as a social
construction: a perspective from the sociology of
knowledge”, Human Relations, Vol. 51 No. 11,
pp. 1379-402.
Strauss, C. and Quinn, N. (1997), A Cognitive Theory of
Cultural Meaning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sutcliffe, K.M. and Huber, G.P. (1998), “Firm and industry
as determinants of executive perceptions of the
environment”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19
No. 8, pp. 793-807.
Tagg, S.K. (1985), “Life story interviews and their
interpretations”, in Brenner, M., Brown, J. and Canter, D.
(Eds), The Research Inter view: Uses and Approaches,
Academic Press, London, pp. 163-99.
Thelen, D. (1989), “A new approach to understanding
human memory offers a solution to the crisis in the study of
history”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, September 27,
pp. B1, B3.
Tyler, S. (1969) in Tyler, S. (Ed.), Cognitive Anthropology,
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, pp. 1-23.
Van Manen, M. (1990), Researching Lived Experience: Human
Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy, Althouse Press,
London (Ontario).

Van Manen, M. (1991), The Tact of Teaching: The Meaning of
Pedagogical Thoughtfulness, State University of New York
Press, Albany, NY/Althouse Press, London (Ontario).
Vygotsky, L. (1987) in Kozulin, A. (Ed.), Thought and
Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Weick, K. (1979), The Social Psychology of Organizing, 2nd
ed., Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Weick, K.E. (2001), “Gapping the relevance bridge: fashions
meet fundamentals in management research”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 12, pp. S71-5.
Wilson, E.J. and Woodside, A.G. (2001), “Executive and
consumer decision processes: increasing useful sensemaking
by identifying similarities and departures”, Journal of
Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 401-14.
Wolcott, H.F. (1981), “Home and away: personal contrasts in
ethnographic style”, in Messerschmidt, D.A. (Ed.),
Anthropologists at Home in North America, Methods and
Issues in the Study of One’s Own Society, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY, pp. 255-65.
Wolcott, H.F. (1990), Writing up Qualitative Research, Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Woodside, A.G. and Wilson, E.J. (2003), “Case study
research methods for theory building”, Journal of Business
& Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 Nos 6/7, pp. 493-508.
Yow, V.R. (1994), Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide
for
Social Scientists, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Zaner, R.M. and Ihde, D. (1973), Phenomenology and
Existentialism, Putnam, New York, NY.
libuser
Typewritten Text
libuser
Text Box
Post-print standardized by MSL Academic Endeavors, the
imprint of the Michael Schwartz Library at Cleveland State
University, 2016
Cleveland State University[email protected]1-1-2012A
Structural Guide To In-Depth Interviewing In Business And
Industrial Marketing ResearchElad GranotThomas Brashear
AlejandroPaulo Cesar MottaPublisher's StatementOriginal
Published Citation150614 547..553

The Qualitative ReportVolume 16 Number 2 How To Article .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Qualitative ReportVolume 16 Number 2 How To Article .docx

Similar to The Qualitative ReportVolume 16 Number 2 How To Article .docx (13)

More from arnoldmeredith47041

More from arnoldmeredith47041 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Qualitative ReportVolume 16 Number 2 How To Article .docx