Unstructured Interview

The unstructured interview comprises various types: creative, ACTIVE, postmodern, and feminist interviews. They all share a common concern with allowing interviewees as much latitude as possible in answering OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS and going off in directions of their own. The interview is seen as an interaction accomplished between the interviewer and the interviewee.

The unstructured interview, also called an in-depth interview, does not rely on CLOSED-ENDED or structured questions. The interviewer pursues information about a given topic by asking open-ended questions or merely prompting the interviewee. The interview may be taped or the interviewer may take notes during the interview or, more rarely, shortly after the conclusion of the interview.

For the interview to take place successfully, the interviewer must gain the trust of the respondent. The interviewer may gain trust by relying on his or her academic status and the scope of the study or by temporarily becoming a member of the group under observation; at times, the respondents are paid to participate in the interview (cf. Malinowski, 1989). Unstructured interviews are often practiced in conjunction with PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; in fact, many of the Chicago school classic studies of the 1930s relied almost entirely on unstructured interviews (Harvey, 1987).

Unstructured interviews have recently taken many forms that differ somewhat from each other. They can be divided into the following subgroups:

Creative Interviewing. In Creative Interviewing, Jack Douglas (1985) proposes different techniques for unstructured interviewing, based on his research and that of his graduate students. Traditionally, the interviewer attempts to remain neutral and not to influence the study in any way. Thus, it should not matter who the interviewer is qua individual. Douglas feels differently. He argues that there is an unwarranted assumption in unstructured interviewing that the respondent will be truthful in his or her answers. Yet, muses Douglas, people lie all the time in everyday life, so why should respondents be any different? To maximize the chances of truthfulness and full disclosure, Douglas feels that the interviewer needs to offer a quid pro quo. The interviewer must disclose a private glimpse in his or her private life to the respondent, thus becoming truly a human being rather than an impersonal neutral interviewer and gaining, it is hoped, the trust of the respondent. In addition, Douglas indicates that information obtained by respondents must be continually checked for veracity by the use of informants. Informants tend to be marginal members of the group studied, and hence they tend to be discontented and likely to divulge information about their group.

ACTIVE INTERVIEW. James Holstein and Jaber Gubrium (1995) moved away from interviews as a one-sided affair in which the interviewer maximizes techniques to gather the best amount of information from the respondent. Instead, Holstein and Gubrium consider the unstructured interview as an active interaction between the interviewer and the respondent. The data gathered are far from neutral. Rather, the interview is the negotiated result reached together by the two (or more) individuals. The results depend on the level of collaboration and ability to interact by the two, who together create a story—the interview. The interview does not take place in a vacuum but is affected by the context in which it occurs. An added relevant dimension for the interview, for Holstein and Gubrium, is determined by how the results are achieved (the reflexive analysis of the elements that affect the interview), as well as by what is achieved (the substantive findings of the interview).

...