The Use of Prompts and Probes
The use of 'open' questions doesn't mean that you hal-e no
control over the way the interviewee responds. Indeed, your
(unobtrusive) control is essential if you are going to achiel-e
your research aims, i.e. you need to 'steer' for the di~ectzo~zand
also ensure that key poi12tsor topics are covered. The first of
these involves the use of 'probes'; the latter the use of
'prompts', and we will deal \\-iththese first.
Developing prompts
These go hand in hand with the development of questio~zs.As
you trial your questions you will be adjusting the xvording'
eliminating some or combining them?changing their order.
What you need to do at the same time is to note the inaitl
poi~ztsand topics that your try-out subjects come up tvith in
their answers. 7Vhile each interviewee comes up with ele-
ments that are unique or peculiar to them, there will be
common components that ezley interviewee needs to address:
these give you your prompts (where you simply ask: what
about . . .?). Other aspects of your research (in policy docu-
ments, what you observe or overhear)will also suggest things
that should go on your prompt list.
If in their response to your questions the intervie~vees
cover those points then you obviously don't need to prompt

them - but they are there to remind you. Usually there is an
obviously right moment to prompt, i.e. when they have been
talking about a related topic so that the prompt can seem like
a ilatural follo~v-on.It is not a matter of you asking the
i~ltervieweeto deal with something that he or she doesn't
svant to talk about, or has nothing to say 011; in the flow of
conversation, things get overlooked.
For ~ O L I Sresearch coverage it ensures a degree of standar-
dization - of comparability from one interviewee to another.
This is critical wlzen yozi conze to do your coizte?zt aiznl3,sis {see
Chapter 8).
Prompts are quite simple to develop and easy to use:
what is described here is a sufficient guide. The use of
probes is another matter - the single most difficult thing in
interviewing.
The use of probes
Probes are supplementary questions or responses which you
use to get intervie~ueesto feed you more - to expand on their
response, or part of it.
The need to use a probe, and precisely what kind, depends
011 what the interviewee is saying. Since you can't predict
what that will be, in any precise sense: you can't anticipate
exactly \vhen a probe will be necessary; and the form ofit will
have to 'fit' the kind of development you are seeking at that
momenr.
Probes - and good questions in general -have the qualities
of good writing: simple, clear, direct and potent. They need
to be uncomplicated because they need to have an immedi-
ately focusing, directing effect.
There are several different kinds of probes, but it should be
mentioned here - because it will be dealt with last - that the
no st effective probe of all - ~decting- doesn't in~rolve
questioning at all, b ~ l tsi~~lplybouncing back something the
The Use of Prom~tsand Probes
interviewee has said (or part of it) so as to get him or her to
focus on and expand that element. However, st-eshall M-ork
through different kinds of probes, dealing with the most
obvious ones first.
If you ask people to clarify things for you you are asking
them to work on what they have just said. This ~l-aythey will
give you more material. You shouldn't ask for clarification as
a 'device' (people soon pick up this kind of dishonesty).You
may have a fair idea of what they mean - but you can't be
sure; and it isn't for you to decide what they are trying to say
or implying.
So you say something like: 'I don't quite understand that'
or 'Can you spell that out for me?' Note that the actual form
ofworcls you use should be something that is 'natural' to you
and comfortable for you to use. In normal conversation \tie
l~avea repertoire of set phrases which we use flexibly, and in
an unconscious process of selection, to fit a particular
moment.
Getting people to explain things to you is a simple but
effective way to encourage them to work on their own
material. Doing so often leads them to insights that they
wouldn't achieve svithout that demand. Therapists use this
approach as a main technique for helping people to achieve
insight into their psychological problems: whether it cizctnges
anything is, of course, another matter.
But asking people to clarify for you - and this is true of
most 'probing' - in a sense puts the~nin control: the!- are
tellingqiozi and l~elpingyoz~to understand. To an important
degree they are 'owning' the interview. This does not contra-
dict the earlier point about the interviewer being in control
of the inter\,iew session. The inter~,iewer'scontrol is of
direction, and topics covered, and their order; the actual
content is determined by the interviewee.

S'lzoicii7g(pk~eciatioizandz~~z(lerstandi?zg
This may not sourld like a form of 'probing' but people will
expand on wl-iat the); are saying if you demonstrate these
qualities. This works best if it is oblique; if it is too direct it
corncs across as patronizing. You also have to watch your
tonc of \.oice: thc overtly 'caring' or 'compassionate' note can
l ~ eoffputting. X straightfor~vardcomment is all that is
recluired. but an appreciative choice of words is important?
e.g. 'How did you cope with that?', 'That must have been
\-crb-difficult' or 'I can't see that you had any choice.'
In an interview people often make judgemental statements -
ahout themselves, about others, about circumstances. There
111a)-\\.ell be a lot behind this ('I'm not good at that sort of
thing', 'There's no use complaining to the management', , .
'You just can't work effecti~~elybecause of tlie atmosphere in
this place'j. You ask somethiilg like: '!\:hat makes you say
that?' Again, this should be in a form that feels natural for
!.OLI> and c~kpropriateto ~vhatthe intervieIvee has just said.
Judgemental statenlents are summary; z~nderstaizdingthem
ineans that ~vhatlies behind them has to be unpacked and
csa~ninecl.Judgements are also a stop on thinking, so that
asking for justification leads to an active process of rethink-
ing. If you are going to get to meaning, the major purpose of
the intervie~z-,it has to be active in this sense.
In an interview, as in conversation in general, people can be
rather elliptical - making leaps from one thing to another
which are connected in their minds but slightly bewildering
to an outsider. You get them to explain to you ('I don't see
1 1 0 ~those tlro things join up?', 'You've lost me there' and so
The Cse of Proinpt~and Prohes
on!. This kind of probe conveys an important message: that
you are listening. that you are trying to make sense: that it i.i
up to then1 to explain things toyoz~.
This is a x-ariant of justification. The inter.\-iexcee\\-illuse a
term i'confusing', 'irrele\.ant'. 'disrupti~~e')and you sa);, fi~r
example. 'Gi1.e me an example' or 'TVhat exactly do ?;ou
nzean %\-henyou say that's "irrelevant"?' The trouble is that
these shorthand: abstract \\-ords mean different thing to
different people so that interpretation is specu1ati1-e.
statement like 'He's !-el-!- aggressi1.e'is open to a x\-ide1.ariet)-
of interpretations; onl?- by asking for an example of thc
'aggressil-eness' can )-ou determine 11o1\-it is being used.
Eutendilzg flzenari atiie
The nobility of the inter[-iew. the number of issues that crop
up, the nature of conversation itself. meails that sometimes.
having embarked on a 'narratis-e' - an account of soinethilig
rhat happened - inrer\~ieweescut it short ar something else
oc,cursto theln. Or the). feel they have said enouqh 71-hen?-ou
can see there is some de~elopmentthere. or some need hr
f ~ ~ s t l ~ e rreflection. 'Tell n ~ ea bit inore about that nleetil1,g;'or
'T\:l~athappened after that?' 12-illkeep the interl-ie~veegoin?
in the direction that he or she had started: !-ou can then
decide \vl~etl-ierto si\:itch to something else.
For ail of us accurate hctual recall is a psobieln: as doctcr.;
kno~z-.taking a inedical histor>-presents special prol>!enl.;
l~ecauseofthis. It is not just a matter of dates. or details iil.;::
that. but also of the o?.del.of xi-hen thing-,%happened. Orie
check on this is 1:hc !:ltei.!inlcoi~.risierlc!,of n-ilat people tell :-o:.~

and )-on can query them on that, e.g. 'I thought that was
hcforc J-oumoved to our present post.' Or you can run over
the sequence of events?e.g. 'Let me see if I've got things in
tllc right order . . .'. It is necessary to remember that the
inter\-ie~vcan be a source of error: hence the importance of
chccking your understanding of ~\rhathas been covered in
tlie closure p11ase of the interviel\?.
Accuracy of sty-knoii;iedge is a much more difficult one:
p u ) ~ l edon't a l ~ v a ~ sunderstand their motives and feelings;
ant1 thcir beha\-iour or history ma~7well contradict what
t11c)- afirm. This issue is discussed in the Endnote (The
Limits of Inter\-ie1.t-Dataj.
Reflecting as a special form of probing
Rcflccting is the technique of offering back; essentially in the
iiltc~l.r'ieic'ep'.i.OTZ-11~\-ol.ds,the essence of ivhat the)- have just
said. This can vary fi-oillrepeating a 'ke>-'phrase or word to
focus the intcn'ie~.\-ee,to soille sort of paraphrasing perhaps
including a reference to the apparent feelings invo1i;edj
I\-hichis more usual.
It is diillicult to do weil and if it is done in a ixlechanical
\\-a)- seem idiotic.. As a technique it emerged from 'non-
clirectivc' therapeutic approaches, i.e. those based on the
assumption that it is clients ivho hal-e the answers to their
prol~leinsand the tl~erapist'sjob is to help them locate and
cspress those person:il solutions.
So \\-hatit encoura.gesis a b r m ofsel;'li.~f?tciio~ithat does no11
~ C P ( > L I C !on a cluesrioning stance on rhe part of :he inter\-ie\\.er
or therapist. If it is S.one eiTectivc.i?-it alloivs inter\-iex\-cesro
tilci tliat 111ci'orm~1l:itioilthat eilicrgrs is tiwii~- eT-enif the>-
coulcln't ha\-egot thme aione.
.l'hc goals or the :,esearcll interl-ieu- are not therapeutic,
;xirho~igl~it is not ovt of the quesr-ion that the person being
iiltc-rj.iei\-cd iincls that he or she has learnt soilxrlling.
The Use of Prompts and Probes
Expressing yourself is part of the process of understanding
yourself and people can sometimes feel impelled to make
disclosures which are startlingly personal. As a researcher,
one is not after that sort of material, but it is an index of how
people can feel free to talk, even want to, at a level which
gives you access to material that is normally not expressed at
all.
Direct questioning does not easily convey empathy and
understanding; and may actually inhibit disclosure. In a
sense reflecting does not odd to what the interviewee has said:
but it does two things:
by summarizing the overt content it focuses the inter-
viewee on the essence of what he or she has just said so as
to encourage its f~~rtherexploration;
it indicates an awareness of the emotional state behind
what has been said.
In other words, it shows that you have been listening
caref~~lly:and that you are sensitive to the personal signifi-
cance of what has been said. How does one achieve this as an
interviewer? The answer is not to think too much in terms of
teclznique (~lhichmeans focusing on oneselfl but to focus hard
on the person you are inter~~iewing.If you have a clear ,grasp
of the principle that the interiiienlee owns the content and that
your job is to help him or her to express that then the
appropriate response will emerge almost naturally.
At this point an example is necessary (see Box 6.1).This
example is fictional but it is sufficiently true-to-life to
illustrate the different quality of ~.eJectingcompared ti-it11
questioning, and 110~4~reflecting bziilds on what has been said
and keeps things moving in a direction indicated by the
interviewee (but still compatible \$-it11the overall research
aims - in this liypotl~eticalexample the difficulties and
support experienced by probationary teachers, and the
relevance of training).
Reflecting encourages the intert-iex\-eeto explore f~~rther,

Box 6.1
Reflecting at \l'ork
M'ell. ~vhenI had my first teaching post.. . . T'Vell, no matter
how much you prepare )70u feel 'I've got to get in there and
take charge.. ..' One of the classes had the reputation of
being, well) not easy . . .
2'oii didiz'tfeelyoz~c021ld Fln12 lzoa to control the rlnss.
That's right . . . and your training, well, it helped a hit I
suppose . . . and the senior staffin the school, ~vellthey had
a lot to do, always busy. Friendly, you know . .. .
* 1vli dirlr1't i/zink2~oilcould get V ~ Z ~ C I ZIzeQjoin t11~772.
I'm not blaming them ... but; no. But there was another
teacher . . . been there years . . . and she said: keep it simple.
Do this and do that and that ... you haven't got time to be
subtle ...
OnCy .siii~j~le1-uiescoiild ic>oi.X-.
Exactly . . . I mean the lecturers at college, would have been
sliocked! (laughs!. Eut the)- weren't in there and I was.
PausesI In that respect yes . . .
perhaps developing previously uncoordinated elements. This
is part of the work of an interview; and is one of the great
strengths of the technique.
I11 cl~~estionnairespeople are often asked their opinions
:~t:ithtightly structured Tvays of responding) but this pre-
s~unlcsthat people 11al.e 'opinions' in a readily accessible and
organized b r m . Quite often this is not the case and it is only
in 'discussion' that people can work our and express what
tlley feel or believe. Opinions and feelings are often vague
and ill-clcfined.
? 7
lllis dynamic character of intervie\\-ing can be its most
fi~scinntingaspect, leading to genuine discovery - for both
parties in~ol\-ecl.
Piloting and Running the
Interview
The pilot interview is an advanced stage of development:
close to the real thing. You will have been coining near it as
you 'trial' your questions - but that is concerned with getting
the questions right rather than getting the interview right. -4s
we have seen in the preceding chapters: there is a lot more to
interviewing than asking questions. And getting these ele-
ments - essentially how to manage an interview and make it
work - under control so that you feel reasonably fluent and
confident requires practice.
So we can make a distinction betweenpractisirig interviekv-
ing - as a skill - and pilotiizg the interview so that you can
concentrate on the specifics of that and make last illinute
adjustments and alterations. KOmatter what ~vorkyou ha\-e
put into the different parts of the interviel\r, hen it is all put
together it is different: adjustments to content are required.
A'lost of the practising should come before piloting, but
they can overlap and combine their f~~nctionsto some extent.
This is also true of coutent anail!sis: categorizing and sorting
what the inter\-iewee has said to you. That is dealt xith
separately in Chapter 9 because it is a big topic in its 013-11
right. But in the c11ronolog)- of inter7-iew de~elopn~entit has
to start being practised well in advance of the pilot inter~.ie~i-
stage.
Content anal)-sis proper comes cgter you have carried
out the research intervie-\.z;s (though you transcribe each