1.1 - Questionnaires and interviews

What self-report measures

A self-report records information supplied by the participant about themselves.

Researchers can ask about experiences that are difficult to observe directly, such as feeling lonely during the first month at college. They can also ask about past behaviour. This gives access to the participant's account and interpretation; it does not guarantee a direct, accurate measurement of an internal state or event.

Social desirability bias occurs when someone gives an answer that presents them favourably rather than an accurate account. A student asked by their teacher how often they miss homework may underreport missed work. Privacy, neutral language and reassurance about confidentiality can reduce pressure to impress. An anonymous questionnaire, where responses cannot be linked to a person, may encourage disclosure, although anonymity cannot guarantee honesty.

Recall can also be inaccurate without deliberate dishonesty. Asking for an exact number of stressful moments across a year places a heavy demand on memory. A shorter, clearly defined period makes the question more manageable. People may interpret a term such as “stress” differently, so the researcher must decide what the answer can legitimately show. Cultural or language differences may affect the meaning of questions and willingness to disclose; a common script alone does not prove equivalent interpretation.

Self-report is especially valuable for perceived experience. If the question is about what people actually do, an appropriate observation or other record can provide complementary evidence. Agreement between methods strengthens a conclusion; disagreement may reveal differences between experience, recall and behaviour rather than a simple lie.

Questionnaires

A questionnaire is a set of questions that participants complete, on paper or electronically.

All respondents can receive the same wording without a researcher interviewing each person. This makes it feasible to collect many responses at relatively low time and cost. Participants may answer privately and at a convenient time. A questionnaire can include fixed response choices, producing easily compared counts or scores, and questions answered in the participant's own words, producing more detailed accounts. Question format is a separate choice from the overall method.

Standard wording helps comparison, but there is often no one present to clarify a misunderstanding. A respondent who reads “contact with friends” as only face-to-face contact may answer differently from someone including messages. A small pilot can reveal confusing language, unsuitable options and excessive length. Revising the questionnaire improves the consistency of what it asks.

Fixed options may omit someone's actual experience. Free-text answers preserve more detail but take longer to interpret consistently. A long questionnaire can cause fatigue, skipped items or hasty responses; a shorter questionnaire can leave relevant experiences unexplored. Online access also matters: a convenient online questionnaire may exclude people with limited internet access or reading difficulties. Collecting many responses does not remove such biases.

An ethical questionnaire explains its purpose, voluntary participation, use of responses and privacy arrangements. Sensitive questions should be justified and allow participants to avoid distressing disclosure. Confidential storage is different from anonymity: researchers may know a person's identity while protecting it from disclosure.

Structured and semi-structured interviews

An interview involves a researcher asking questions and receiving the participant's responses through direct interaction.

In a structured interview, the same predetermined questions are asked in the same order. A script can standardise the wording and reduce variation introduced by different interviewers. It makes answers across participants easier to compare and the questioning procedure easier to repeat. A structured interview can include open questions; “structured” refers to the fixed schedule, not a requirement for yes/no answers.

Its fixed schedule limits flexibility. An unexpected important experience may not be explored if follow-up questions are excluded. Interviewer tone, facial expression or approval can still influence responses despite identical words. Structured interviewing therefore reduces some interviewer variation but does not eliminate interviewer effects or social desirability.

A semi-structured interview uses a planned set of questions while permitting follow-up questions based on an answer. A researcher asking all students about starting college might follow up “I felt excluded at lunch” with “What happened at lunch?” This can explain an experience more clearly while retaining common topics for comparison.

The extra flexibility comes with less standardisation. Some students may receive probing questions that others do not; interviewers may pursue ideas that fit their expectations. A clear topic guide, neutral follow-ups and careful recording help, but the researcher should report this variability. Recordings require suitable consent and secure handling. Compared with a questionnaire, either interview takes staff time and the interaction may make disclosure feel less private.

Unstructured interviews and method choice

An unstructured interview explores a broad research topic without a fixed question schedule controlling every conversation.

Questions develop in response to what the participant says. The interview is still research with a purpose: it is not an aimless conversation. When researchers know little about students' experiences of arriving at college, an unstructured interview can reveal unexpected concerns and allow participants to explain their own meaning. Rapport and patient probing may produce a rich account that fixed options would miss.

Different participants may discuss very different issues, so a missing mention of loneliness cannot be treated as proof that loneliness was absent. The researcher may never have asked about it. Interviews and analysis are time-consuming; a smaller sample may limit the range of experiences represented. Leading probes or selective interpretation can introduce bias. Detailed records, neutral prompts and a transparent analysis approach help others understand how conclusions were reached.

The appropriate method follows the research aim. To estimate how many students report a specified experience, a clear common questionnaire or structured interview supports comparable responses. To discover what that experience means to students, semi-structured or unstructured interviews may be more informative. Neither rich detail nor numerical convenience makes one method universally superior. Researchers must balance depth, comparison, access, time, privacy and the likely accuracy of reporting.