02 Section A, Key question 3 - Unstructured and semi-structured interviews (part 4)

Flexible interview designs

Flexible interviews allow participants to explain experiences in their own terms while the researcher pursues a sociological question.

For example, a researcher investigating employment insecurity might begin, “Tell me about your working life since leaving education.” One participant may begin with a redundancy, another with caring for a relative. The researcher listens for how these experiences connect to work and asks for clarification. Unstructured does not mean unplanned or aimless: recruitment, consent and the research purpose still need preparation. The distinctive feature is that a predetermined question schedule does not control the conversation.

A semi-structured interview uses a topic guide: a flexible plan of questions or areas to explore. A guide on insecure work might cover entry into jobs, changes in hours, household responsibilities and expectations for the future. Each interview should address these areas where appropriate, but their order, wording and follow-up questions can change. An unexpected account of unpaid travel between workplaces can therefore be explored even if the guide did not anticipate it. UKRI's account of qualitative interviewing explains these different degrees of flexibility.

A structured interview, by comparison, gives participants the same predetermined questions in a set order, with little discretion to pursue new topics. This supports standardised comparison, but it can leave the meaning behind an answer unexplored. The distinction concerns how the interview is organised; it does not simply mean “spoken rather than written”. All three forms can be conducted by speaking.

Qualitative data concerns meanings and descriptions, such as a participant's explanation of why unpredictable shifts feel humiliating. Quantitative data records quantities, such as weekly paid hours. Flexible interviews mainly seek detailed qualitative accounts, but can collect numerical information too. Equally, a structured interview can include an open question producing qualitative answers. Method and data type are related choices, not identical categories. UK Data Service's introduction identifies interview transcripts as one important kind of qualitative data.

Neutral probes and rapport

A useful follow-up question develops the participant's meaning without supplying an answer for them.

A probe is a follow-up that asks for clarification, detail, an example or a sequence of events. Rapport is a relationship in which participants feel sufficiently comfortable and respected to communicate. Listening without rushing, using understandable language and allowing pauses can help establish it. Rapport supports disclosure; it cannot guarantee accuracy or make a researcher entitled to personal information.

Consider this original teaching conversation about access to employment. It is invented, rather than a transcript from a real study.

The researcher can then distinguish what the participant reports being said, how they interpreted it, and what the researcher infers. These are connected but different forms of evidence. “So the employer discriminated against you, didn't they?” is a leading question because it offers the desired interpretation and encourages agreement. It may suppress other explanations and make it unclear whose idea appears in the answer. UK Statistics Authority's methods guidance discusses this problem with leading questions and researcher influence.

Interviewer imposition occurs when the researcher's assumptions or categories shape an account instead of letting the participant express their own meaning. Even an open interview has some direction: the researcher chooses the broad topic, notices some statements and leaves others unexplored. Using the participant's words in a probe reduces one source of imposition, but interpretation remains necessary.

Warmth also needs judgment. Repeated praise when someone criticises an employer might encourage more criticism because the participant thinks it pleases the interviewer. A neutral response such as “Could you tell me more about that?” is usually more informative than signalling that one answer is correct. Probing should stop if the participant declines to discuss a topic; persistence can undermine both trust and voluntary participation.

Power and sensitive accounts

Accounts of inequality are produced in a social relationship that can affect what participants feel able to say.

An interviewer may appear more powerful because of their occupation, education, manner of speaking or institutional connections. In an original teaching scenario, a researcher recruits jobseekers through an employment-support office. A participant thinks the interviewer can affect their access to services. Even if that belief is mistaken, it may make refusal difficult and encourage answers that seem acceptable to an official. Clear explanations of the researcher's role and voluntary participation are therefore important. An employer or support worker's permission to enter a setting is not the same as the individual's consent to be interviewed.

Social desirability means presenting oneself in a way one thinks will be approved. A participant may emphasise willingness to work or downplay financial problems to avoid being judged. This does not mean all participants lie, nor that the researcher should assume every reassuring answer is false. The account may reveal the importance of respectability and stigma as well as information about material circumstances. Stigma is a discrediting social label; fear of it can make a discussion of debt, poverty or discrimination sensitive.

Language matters too. “How has precarious employment affected your life chances?” assumes familiarity with sociological vocabulary. “How have changes in your work affected everyday life?” allows an account before technical categories are applied. A participant can clarify unfamiliar wording in a flexible interview, which may improve understanding. When translation is needed, the researcher must consider whether meanings are preserved and whether the interpreter's presence changes disclosure. Shared language or social background may help rapport, but neither automatically removes power differences or shared assumptions.

Recall also limits an account. Someone reconstructing years of irregular work may confuse dates or explain an earlier decision in light of what happened later. Asking about a particular episode and using remembered events as time markers can clarify the sequence. It should remain acceptable to say “I cannot remember”; a confident, detailed narrative is not itself proof that every event occurred exactly as described.