Asking Questions: Techniques for Semistructured Interviews
Author(s): Beth L. Leech
Source: PS: Political Science and Politics , Dec., 2002, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Dec., 2002), pp. 665-
668
Published by: American Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1554805
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to PS: Political Science and Politics
This content downloaded from
134.117.10.200 on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:09:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Asking Questions: Techniques for
Semistructured Interviews
n an interview, what you already know is as
important as what you want to know. What
you want to know determines which questions
you will ask. What you already know will determine
how you ask them.
Thanks to past jobs as a journalist and as
an anthropological researcher, I've had training
in both journalistic and ethnographic
styles of interviewing. The two are at the
opposite ends of the interview continuum. The
journalistic style tries to verbally pin the respondent
down by appearing to know everything
already. The questions are direct and
directed toward a particular outcome. The
ethnographic style of interviewing instead tries
to enter into the world of the respondent by
appearing to know very little.
There are many types of interviews with
many styles of questions, each appropriate in
different circumstances. Unstructured interviews,
often used by ethnographers, are really
more conversations
than interviews,
by with even the topic
Beth L. B |Ieech, of conversation subBeth
L. Leech, ject to change as
Rutgers University the interview progresses.
These
"soaking and poking"
experiences are most appropriate when
the interviewer has limited knowledge about a
topic or wants an insider perspective. But the
tendency for such interviews to wander off in
unexpected directions-although they may
provide for fresh ideas-almost guarantees
that the interviews will not be a very
consistent source of reliable data that can be
compared across interviews. Unstructured interviews
are best used as a source of insight,
not for hypothesis testing.
Sometimes, however, we already have a lot
of knowledge about a topic and want very
specific answers to very specific questions.
When the researcher already knows a lot about
the subject matter-the categories and all possible
responses are familiar, and the only goal
is to count how many people fall into each
category of response-structured interviews
with closed-ended questions are most appropriate.
Political scientists are most familiar with
this type of interview because of mass public
opinion surveys. Such closed-ended approaches
can sometimes backfire, however, if we assume
we are familiar with an area but end up
asking the wrong questions in the wrong way
or omitting an important response choice. We
may find ourselves with reliable data that lacks
any content validity.
There is a middle ground, however, and one
that can provide detail, depth, and an insider's
perspective, while at the same time allowing
hypothesis testing and the quantitative analysis
of interview responses. In this essay I will
focus on that interview style-semistructured
interviews with open-ended questions. It is a
style that is often used in elite interviewing,
and variations on this style are discussed in
several of the other essays on these pages. My
observations and suggestions here come not
only from my past experiences as a journalist
and an ethnographic researcher, but also from
my current research among lobbyists and policymakers
in Washington, DC, as part of the
Advocacy and Public Policymaking project.'
Gaining Rapport
Without rapport, even the best-phrased
questions can fall flat and elicit brief, uninformative
answers. Rapport means more than
just putting people at ease. It means convincing
people that you are listening, that you
understand and are interested in what they are
talking about, and that they should continue
talking. There are several ways of doing this
within the interview.
Putting Respondents at Ease
Some interviewing textbooks recommend
that the interviewer "appear slightly dim and
agreeable" (McCracken 1988, 38) or "play
dumb" so that respondents do not feel threatened
and are not worried that they will lose
face in the interview. The danger here is
that-especially when dealing with highly
educated, highly placed respondents-they
will feel that they are wasting their time with
an idiot, or at least will dumb-down their
answers and subject interviewers to a Politics
101 lecture. At the same time, the concern
about respondents' feelings is valid. Even
highly educated, highly placed respondents do
not want to appear stupid in front of a university
professor (I have had to reassure vice
presidents of large organizations who were
worried that they had "babbled" during an
interview).
I recommend a middle road. The interviewer
should seem professional and generally
knowledgeable, but less knowledgeable than
the respondent on the particular topic of the
interview. So for me, I know a lot about lobbying
and a lot about American politics, and I
know what has been in the newspaper on a
given policy issue, but I present myself as
having little or no idea about what happened
behind the scenes in the given policy issue I
am interviewing about. I try to continue this
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 665
This content downloaded from
134.117.10.200 on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:09:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
approach even after I have conducted many interviews on the
same policy issue. I don't want someone to leave something
out because they assume I already knew it.
A second, related point to remember is that many of your
subjects will be more nervous than you are. After all, after
you've done a couple of these, you are experienced. Your respondents,
however, may never have been the subject of an
academic study before. Reassure them by being open and
avoiding threatening descriptions of your work. "Talk with
you" is less threatening than "interview you," for example
(Weinberg 1996, 83). It is possible to be honest without being
scary. There's no need to make your work sound like a medical
procedure (at least until you are getting ready to submit it
to a journal, that is). Approach interview subjects with a positive
attitude. Act as though it is natural that people would
want to talk to you. Appear friendly and curious.
An important way to make an interview subject feel at ease
is to explain your project again. This is the one-minute version
of your project, which should describe the topic you are
interested in and the types of questions you will ask, without
tipping your hand as to your hypotheses.2 At this point you
can remind respondents that their answers are confidential.3
Are You Listening?
During the interview itself, before moving on to the next
question it often helps to briefly restate what the respondent
has just said. (This should take no more than a sentence.) This
shows that you are interested and have understood what the
respondent has just said. It also provides a chance for the
respondent to correct you if you have misunderstood. Avoid
reinterpreting what the respondent has just said, as this has
the tendency to work against rapport and leave the respondents
feeling as if the interviewer is trying to put words in
their mouths. Use the respondents' own language, if possible,
to summarize what has just been said.
Anthropologist James Spradley suggests that when an interviewer
does not understand a particular point, that it is better
to ask for use rather than meaning (1979, 82). That is, "When
would you do that?" or "What would you use that for?" are
usually better questions for building rapport than "What do
you mean by that?" The latter tends to shift respondents out
of their own verbal word and to begin speaking to you as an
outsider.
Question Order
Question order is important for substantive reasons (order
affects occur in interviews, just as they do in surveys), but
order is also important as a means of gaining rapport. As any
journalist would tell you, in an interview you should always
move from the nonthreatening to the threatening (Weinberg
1996, 85). That is, ask the easy questions first.
In the interviews I have conducted among lobbyists and
policymakers, I find that it usually works better to ask things
like age, background, title, and other personal things last. That
way the interview doesn't come off as if it is about my respondent
personally, but rather about the political issue or
organization that we are talking about. This type of question
order works for me because my other questions are not
personal, and are therefore even less threatening than the demographic
information I collect at the end. On the other hand,
if your interview questions focus on an individual's own political
and philosophical beliefs, then obviously questions about
education, background, and title would be less threatening and
would provide a good place to start.
When and how should you ask sensitive questions? It's usually
best to wait until the middle or toward the end of the interview.
Don't wait until the last minute-you may run out of
time. Don't hem, haw, or make it seem as though any normal
person would refuse to answer this question. Just ask. Then be
quiet, and give the respondent time to answer. Most people
will try to fill the silence, and you will get your answer.
A second thing to remember about sensitive questions-or
any question, for that matter-is to use nonjudgmental, nonthreatening
wording. For instance, asking a respondent, "What
kinds of help do you give to members of Congress as they are
going about their work or daily lives?" is likely to gain you
more information than if you were to ask, "Do you do favors
for members of Congress?"4 Likewise, I know that nonprofit
organizations with 501(c)3 charitable status are skittish about
the word "lobbying," since the IRS restricts the amount of
lobbying they can do. So I make a habit of referring to
"advocacy efforts" or "policy work" instead.
When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?
What are known as "presuming" questions are common
in journalism, but are usually not good social science. There
are circumstances, however, when such questions are necessary
to make respondents comfortable enough to answer honestly.
When the question is one that the respondent is likely to try to
avoid and involves a matter that may have a stigma attached
to it, a presuming question may be the only way to go. When
I was working as an ethnographic researcher in Kenya, collecting
reproductive histories from women, I first began simply by
asking women to tell me about all of their pregnancies. It was
clear from the first few interviews that no one was mentioning
miscarriages, stillbirths, or deaths of children-and I knew that
could not be accurate in a rural area with nonexistent prenatal
care and high child mortality. So I tried probing: "Tell me
about any children who died." I used this question only once,
and it caused a respondent to jump up, mutter that she must
go check on the goats, and run out the door. After some help
from a language consultant, I did two things. I made my
language less threatening, and I asked the question in a
presuming way. "How many children are the lost ones?" I
asked-"Aja inkera netala?" My respondents' faces would turn
serious, they would sigh, then they would tell me the details I
was seeking.
To return to the political world, instead of asking a lobbyist,
"Did you give soft money donations?" it might make the question
easier to answer to say, "How much did your organization
give in soft money donations?" The latter presumes that it is
normal to give soft money donations and that everyone must
do it, and also shifts the onus away from the individual and
onto the organization. (Actually, I should point out here that
you should never ask for information in an interview that you
could collect elsewhere, unless you are using the question to
double-check the veracity and accuracy of a respondent. Asking
for information you could easily collect elsewhere wastes precious
interview time and risks insulting your respondents, since
you are essentially asking them to do your homework for you.)
Presuming questions are presuming in the sense that they
imply that the researcher already knows the answer-or at
least part of it. So one danger is that the respondent will bluff
to save face and make something up. That is why I suggest
such questions should be used very sparingly and only when
they are needed to take the edge off of questions that may
otherwise have a stigma attached. In my examples above, a
respondent would be relieved, not shamed, to be able to say
"None."
PS December 2002666
This content downloaded from
134.117.10.200 on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:09:25 UT6 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Types of Questions
We all know that there are certain types of questions to
avoid-loaded questions, double-barreled questions, leading
questions, and (usually) presuming questions. But what types
of questions should you ask in an open-ended, semistructured
interview?
Grand Tour Questions
The single best question I know of for a semistructured
interview is what Spradley (1979) calls a grand tour question.
Like the name suggests, these questions ask respondents
to give a verbal tour of something they know well.
The major benefit of the question is that it gets respondents
talking, but in a fairly focused way. Many good interviewers
use this type of question instinctively. Jeff Berry, for example,
used one in the research for his book The Interest
Group Society when he asked lobbyists to describe an
average day (1997, 94).
There are many different types of grand tour questions (see
Spradley 1979, 86-88). The most common is probably the
typical grand tour question:
"Could you describe a typical day in your office?"
"Could you describe a typical day on the Hill?"
"Could you describe a typical day in a member of Parliament's
office?"
Such questions have the benefit of giving you a sense of what
an average day is like, but the drawback that you are not certain
what is being averaged-that is, how much variation there
is and how accurate the respondent's sense of the usual really
is. Respondents may have a tendency to focus on the interesting
(which may not be usual), or on what they think should happen
day to day (although it actually may not). If you are doing
enough interviews to get a sense of the average by comparing
across interviews, then you may want to turn to a specific
grand tour question.
Specific grand tour questions ask for a tour based on some
parameter decided by the interviewer-a day, a topic, an
event: "Could you walk me through what you did yesterday in
your office?" or "Walk me through what your organization did
in response to issue X." We used a specific grand tour question
to begin our interviews for the Advocacy and Public Policymaking
project, asking respondents to describe their organizations'
activities on the most recent policy issue in which
they were involved.
Not all interviews need to be conducted sitting down, and
not all grand tours need to be virtual. A guided grand tour is
an actual tour: "The next time you are lobbying on the Hill,
could you bring me along and show me what you do?" Related
to this are task-related grand tours. Such questions ask the respondent
to perform some usual task while verbally walking the
interviewer through the task. For instance, I could ask a lobbyist
to lay out talking points for a meeting with a legislator, or
to compile a list of which members of Congress to talk to, explaining
the decisions being made at each step of the process.
Example Questions
Example questions are similar to grand tour questions, but
still more specific (see Spradley 1979, 87-88). They take some
single act or event identified by the respondent and ask for an
example: "Can you give me an example of a time that you used
grassroots lobbying?" A related type of question is native language
questions, which ask for an example in the respondent's
own words. These can be direct-language questions-"How do
you refer to these lobbying activities? What do you call
them?"-or hypothetical interaction questions-"If you were
talking to another lobbyist, what would you call that?" or "If I
were to sit in on that meeting, how would I hear people referring
to that?" Hypothetical interaction questions are sometimes
easier to answer than direct language questions, because they
help put the respondent in the mindset of talking to other experts,
and can help shake them out of Politics 101.
Ethnographers use many other types of questions, many of
which are of diminishing usefulness for most political scientists.
However, the less you knew about an area, the more
important such questions would become, to add direction to
what otherwise would be a random conversational walk. Structural
questions, for example, ask respondents to semantically
structure their world through such exercises as listing all the
different types of something and how they relate to each other
(Spradley 1979; Werner and Schoepfle 1987). So, hypothetically,
if I did not already know the different ways in which
interest groups can lobby, instead of simply asking "What has
your organization done in relation to this issue?"-I could ask
something like this:
"We've been talking about your advocacy efforts on this issue
and you have mentioned that you sent a letter to members on
the committee, visited with members of the congressional delegation
from your district, and put information on your website.
Now I want to ask you a slightly different kind of question. I'm
interested in getting a list of all the different types of advocacy
activities your organization has undertaken in relation to this
issue. This might take a little time, but I'd like to know all the
different types and what you would call them. (Adapted from
Spradley 1979, 122)
Note that the second question would get you a lot more information
than the first. It starts off by showing that the interviewer
has been listening, then asks for more information in a
specific way.5 Be aware that if you really want a complete list
then you may need to repeat the last part of this question
many times to get all of them: "And are there any other types
of advocacy efforts your group uses?" This is an example of a
prompt, and leads me into my final type of question.
Prompts
Prompts are as important as the questions themselves in
semistructured interviews. Prompts do two things: they keep
people talking and they rescue you when responses turn to
mush.
Let's take the introductory question from the Advocacy and
Public Policymaking project:
"Could you take the most recent issue you've been spending
time on and describe what you're trying to accomplish on this
issue and what type of action are you taking to make that
happen?"
One of my respondents answered, "Well, we've been talking
to some people on the Hill and trying to get our message
out." He had just described the activities of every lobbyist in
Washington. If I had stopped here, the interview would have
been useless. Luckily, my interview protocol included numerous
prompts, based on what we wanted to be able to code
from this question, including who the targets of lobbying
were, and what lobbying tactics were used. So at this point,
possible prompts would include: "Who have you been talking
to on the Hill?" and "What are you doing to try to get your
message out?"
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 667
This content downloaded from
134.117.10.200 on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:09:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
McCracken (1988, 35-36) identifies several different types of
prompts. Prompts like the ones I just mentioned are planned
prompts-prompts that are formally included in the interview
protocol. At the end of each formal question we ask as part of
the Advocacy and Public Policymaking project, there is an italicized
list of specifics that the interviewer is supposed to probe
for if the respondent doesn't bring them up. For example:
probe about coalition partners (formal or informal)
probe about who they are speaking with about this issue
One difference between a prompt and a question is that the
prompts are not scripted as are the initial questions. The reason is
that every interview is different and the list of possible probe situations
could potentially go on for dozens of pages. That makes
it important for the interviewer to have a plan for how the interviews
will eventually be coded, so that the interviewer can make
sure that the responses have covered the necessary points.
Probably the most instinctive type of prompt is an informal
prompt. This is an unscripted prompt that may be nothing more
than the reassuring noises and interjections that people make
during any conversation to show that they are listening and interested:
"Uh-huh." "Yes." "How interesting." But the welltrained
interviewer has a variety of informal prompts to use.
Floating prompts, for example, are used to clarify (McCracken
1988, 35). These may be nothing more than raising an eyebrow
and cocking one's head, or they may be specific questions:
"How?" "Why?" and "And then...?" One way to ask for clarification
and at the same time build rapport is to repeat the key
term of the respondent's last remark as a question:
Respondent: "And the bill was completely whitewashed in
committee."
Interviewer: "Whitewashed?"
McCracken warns against leading respondents by putting
words in their mouths ("Do you mean the bill was gutted?")
You risk losing rapport or having the respondent go along
with your definition ("oh, yeah, sort of'), rather than clarifying
further. The goal here is to listen for key terms and to prompt
the respondent to say more about them.
Notes
1. My collaborators on the Advocacy and Public Policymaking project
are Frank R. Baumgartner, Marie Hojnacki, David C. Kimball, and
Jeffrey M. Berry. Research has been supported by National Science
Foundation grants SBR-9905195 and SES-0111224. For more
information on this project, including the complete interview protocol,
see our website at <http://lobby.la.psu.edu/>. Also see Leech et al.
2002.
2. Elite interviewing subjects often are quite savvy about social science
research, and it is not uncommon for an interviewee to ask, "So what is
your working hypothesis here?" I respond to questions like these by
explaining that if I told them I would risk biasing my results, but that I
would be happy to send them information about the project and its
hypotheses after the interview is over.
References
Berry, Jeffrey M. 1997. The Interest Group Society. Third ed. New York:
Longman.
Leech, Beth L., Frank R. Baumgartner, Jeffrey M. Berry, Marie Hojnacki,
and David C. Kimball. 2002. "Organized Interests and Issue Definition
in Policy Debates." In Interest Group Politics, eds. Allan J. Cigler and
Burdett A. Loomis. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
McCracken, Grant. 1988. The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Enough is Enough
One of the most important rules about asking questions has
to do with shutting up. Give your respondent room to talk. If
respondents get off topic, let them finish, then bring them
gently back to the issue you are interested in. But don't try to
control too much or you may miss important, unexpected
points.
Conclusion
Used in combination, grand tour questions and floating
prompts are sometimes enough to elicit almost all of the
information you need in a semistructured interview (with
planned prompts ready in case the floating prompts don't
work!). I know that in many of my interviews for the
Advocacy and Public Policymaking project, the answer to
the first grand tour question took up half of the interview
hour-and rendered many of the subsequent questions on
the protocol virtually unnecessary. I would, of course, check,
"You have mentioned x and x as people you worked with
on this issue. Was anyone else involved in this issue?" But
often the answer was no and we would quickly move on to
the next question on the protocol. This was the best of both
worlds, because it collected the information we wanted and
provided it in the respondent's own language and
framework.
Some of the question styles that semistructured interviewing
borrows from anthropology may seem not very useful if you
seek very specific information about a known topic and are
not planning to write an ethnography of lobbyists, elected officials,
or civil servants. On the other hand, if you take the time
to ask these kinds of questions, you sometimes get surprising
answers and learn something new. It's true that the type of
interview you use depends on what you already know, but if
you already knew everything, there would be little reason to
spend time in a face-to-face interview. Semistructured interviews
allow respondents the chance to be the experts and to
inform the research.
3. An excellent way to convince your respondents that you really are serious
about confidentiality issues is to decline to give them any information
about the people you already have interviewed. A respondent may ask, "So
who else have you talked to?" The interviewer can answer, "Oh, several
people, although I can't reveal exactly who without their permission."
4. These questions also raise an elementary point about interviewing:
Don't ask a yes-or-no question unless you want a yes-or-no answer.
"How," "why," "what kinds of," and "in what way" usually are much
better ways to begin a question in a semistructured interview.
5. This question also demonstrates that expanding the length of the
question tends to expand the length of the response (Spradley 1979, 85).
Be aware, however, that long questions can lead people off point or
confuse them. If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.
Spradley, James P. 1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Weinberg, Steve. 1996. The Reporter's Handbook: An Investigator's Guide
to Documents and Techniques. Third ed. New York: St. Martin's.
Werner, Oswald, and G. Mark Schoepfle. 1987. Systematic Fieldwork:
Foundations of Ethnography and Interviewing. Vol. 1. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
PS December 2002668
This content downloaded from
134.117.10.200 on Fri, 03 Sep 2021 16:09:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms