To obtain better insight into the phenomena under consideration, to limit the risks of biased answers and to facilitate spontaneous answering with the usage of own language and concept, a good interviewer in IDIs and a good moderator of FGIs apply some rules regarding the order of questioning and type of questions, and use supporting techniques which should be anticipated in the topic guide.
Next to the rule of facilitation of natural processes, the issues and questions should have logical order (Maison, 2010). In practice it means that after one topic, the participant naturally goes to another topic, even without questioning, or at least each issue is a logical continuation of the previous issue. Very helpful for implementing the appropriate order of questioning is a “funnel” metaphor (see Figure 5.2.). In case of interviewing it means starting with general questions
and going to detailed and supporting questions and fi nally to probing. Figure 5.2. Funnel rule of questioning during interview
Types of main questions, their role in qualitative interviews and examples are presented in Table 5.6. General questions should be broad enough to encourage openness and spontaneity and free talk, but also enough focused on the issue under consideration to avoid excessive answers about issues not important for the topic of interview. Detailed, supporting questions serve most of all to better understanding issues under consideration and participant’s perspective. Probing enables the interviewer to ask about issues not mentioned what helps to test ideas driven from theory and about possible explanations of participant’s statements. Open questioning is one of key features and advantages of qualitative interviewing and without any doubt should dominate
5.4. Better insight into the phenomena via questioning and supporting techniques the process of interviewing, whatever other type of question is asked (general, supporting or probing). Open questions encourage interviewee to talk freely with the usage of own concepts and facilitate answers relatively unbiased by the interviewer perspective. Seemingly easy, in practice open questioning may appear diffi cult because in the real life talks this type of questions is rarely applied compared to closed questions. Closed questions during interviewing carry the risk of very short, simplifi ed answers or unintentional bias. That’s why some training via preparing questions for the topic guide is so important. The training may also help formulate questions in neutral way, what is an additional key for obtaining unbiased answers. Again, it may seem easy, but in practice avoidance of suggestive questions (that in content or intonation carry the message about the attitude of an interviewer) or threatening questions (e.g., “why you haven’t done this?” despite of less threatening “please tell me more details about your decision”) may appear quite diffi cult.
Table 5.6. Types of questions dominating in qualitative interview Type of
question Function Examples
General/ basic questions Facilitating an openness of participant, a spontaneous conceptualization of the issues under consideration
“What are your experiences with ….?”
Open questions
“How the process of… looks like in your company?”
Detailed/ supporting/ follow up questions
Gaining better insight into issue under consideration and participant perspective
“Why this process looks like this?” “Who else was involved in this process?”
“Tell me more details about this part of the process”
“What example of this issue would you present?”
Probing Gaining answers about issues not mentioned spontaneously by a participant; testing “hypothesis” derived from theory and checking explanations and
interpretation of some statements or data (e.g., for triangulation)
“What was the role of HR department in this decision process?”
“I can imagine one more reason of this situation: lack of employees’ motivation. What do you think about this explanation?”
Neutral Facilitate unbiased answers “What do you think about this issue”
Source: Own elaboration, based on Maison (2010), Stewart et al. (2007).
Beside the main types of questions, the researcher has a wide range of
large part of interview or – with some exceptions – as a technique for the whole interview. In general, supporting techniques are shortcuts to achieve some goals in shorter time than via “direct” questioning or/and to facilitate an access to
information diffi cult or impossible to obtain via direct questioning as they
may help refresh memory or open access to implicit level of thinking. Moreover, in case of group interviewing, applying individual techniques may reduce some
biases related with group infl uence.
The taken for granted assumption that participant include all the most important information in their words may be misleading. The situation of interview itself may limit the amount of verbalized information (e.g., due to individual differences, time constraints, beliefs about interviewer’s expectations, presence of others). Moreover, current psychology fi ndings reveal that people are only partially conscious of their attitudes, needs and behaviors, some of them are implicit (Bargh, 2002; Maison, 2010; Woodside, 2010). The participants’ answers depend on accessibility of information from long-term memory and
skills to verbalize it. Some answers may seem to participants so obvious or
even irrelevant that they are not verbalized during interviews (e.g., that there is very hierarchical managerial structure in their organization) or may be outside their focal attention (the topic of the interview is one of many different tasks that they have during a day). Some of attitudes and processes may be diffi cult
to explicate (e.g., corporate values, informal ways of communication in a team)
or may refer to intuitions and emotions, not to rationality (e.g., reasons why subordinates do not accept new informatics solutions). Finally, people may not
be willing to verbalize some beliefs explicitly or directly, because of the risk of
social approval. The assumption about implicit level of people functioning has at least two consequences for qualitative research. First, direct questioning is not always the most effective way of gathering data (what is extremely important particularly in interviews with very busy individuals). Second, indirect techniques may help to triangulate data, however they may also reveal information complementary or discrepant with the “conscious level” of interview (this issue will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 6). Assumptions about a hidden nature of some phenomena differ depending on the theoretical approach, but it is worth at least considering this level of people’s functioning during qualitative interviews and understand that it is possible to deal with them by application of supporting techniques.
Table 5.7. presents some techniques of questioning that has been applied in academic research regarding the management, organizational and consumer behavior fi eld, the exemplar function and generic procedure. This list does not exhaust the procedures applied in qualitative interviews; however, it illustrates the variety of techniques of gathering data.
5.4. Better insight into the phenomena via questioning and supporting techniques
Table 5.7. Supporting techniques Type of question Example of function Generic procedure Sorting/ mapping
Insight into causal • relationships Identifying • key criteria of perception Recognition of • perception of some objects (brands, products, notions) as compared with others
Participant sorts cards with e.g., notions, names, logo, photos according to spontaneous or/and aided criteria, describes and explains relationships Critical incident analysis (CIT) To gain better • understanding of peoples’ perspective
Participant reconstructs an incident or set of incidents (events, processes, issues) of particular meaning for him and delivers information about the personal meaning, beliefs, emotions, behaviors, context and outcomes
Repertory grid To identify the • key features in people’s perception of some phenomena
Participant fi rst selects the “evoked set” of elements within a given phenomena. Next to elicit a list of important features (constructs) participant describes similarities and differences within this set of elements. As a result, a matrix of elements and constructs is generated Laddering • To identify the
values underlying consumer choices
Participant describes reasons of some behavior, then explains reasons why these features/issues are important and again explains importance of the identifi ed features and so on till end values are identifi ed (or from values go to features) Projective
techniques
To understand •
implicit beliefs and emotions To facilitate talking • or discussion To omit • rationalizations
Participants project their beliefs and feelings to stimuli material (e.g.,. imagine that a brand is a person, animal, car; use photos) or answer indirectly (e.g., via associations, fi nishing uncompleted sentences) Scaled closed question To summarize the • overall perceptions of a given issue To facilitate talking • To facilitate • analysis
Participant answers a closed question with a numeric scale, e.g., semantic differential Likert type, hierarchy of importance, etc.
Source: Own elaboration.
Sorting. One of multifunctional techniques is sorting (McDonald, Daniels & Harris, 2004; Rugg & McGeorge, 2005), called also mapping, perceptual map,
versions and many underlying conceptualizations. In its generic idea participants sort “something” and identify reasons of sorting. Depending on the particular aim, they may sort a wide range of materials both created during interview and earlier prepared. They may sort cards with their own main statements or – in market research – names of brands that they know or they use or used. They may sort written materials (names of concepts of many kinds, of categories, of brand names), visual materials (photos, logos, labels) or objects (e.g., products or mock ups). The researcher may ask a participant to use own criteria of sorting, to sort according the aided criteria or both, then starting with spontaneous sorting. The variety of aided criteria is huge; an example of sorting in organizational setting to recognize the perception of causality is presented in Frame 5.2. In market research, the technique of sorting is typically applied for identifying criteria of brand perception, the brand and user’s image of particular brands as compared with competitive brands, and participants sort cards with brand names, logos, real products, or – in photo sorting – pictures of persons (Maison, 2010).
Frame 5.2. An example of sorting in organizational research
For instance, McDonald et al. (2004) applied a card sorting technique to elicit mental model of issues under consideration during interview with resultant maps that show causal reasoning. After each part of interview, the researcher noted on post-it cards the main concepts driven from participants’ statements, asked to check them for accuracy, to sort them according to causal relationships and explain the nature of connection. This technique may be implemented both during IDIs and FGIs (Maison, 2010). The results of sorting may be analyzed “by hand” or with using the statistical software (Hodgkins et al., 2012).
Critical incident technique (CIT). As most qualitative supporting technique, CIT also has many variations. It may be interpreted in both the positivist and phenomenological or interpretative approach (Chell, 2004). In Chell’s (2004) phenomenological development of this method, during an interview the researcher gathers information about the personal meaning, beliefs, emotions, behaviors, context and outcomes, related with an incident or set of incidents (events, processes, issues) of particular meaning for a participant. As such, CIT enables achieving better understanding of peoples’ (entrepreneurs, managers, employees) perspective and is dedicated for emotionally laden critical events (Chell, 2004, p. 45). For the concept, procedures and example of research in organization, one may read the text by Elizabeth Chell (2004) and the text by Binna Kandola (2012) on its application during focus group interviews.
Repertory grid. This technique may be applied both in the positivist and non-positivist (e.g., interpretative) approaches and, as many other techniques,
5.4. Better insight into the phenomena via questioning and supporting techniques this interviewing procedure has many variations including a mixed-method procedure and analysis (Cassell & Walsh, 2004; Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Its aim is to identify the key features in people’s perception of some phenomena. In generic approach, participant’s fi rst task is to select the “evoked set” of elements within a given phenomena. Next, to elicit list of important features (constructs), a participant describes similarities and differences within this set of elements. As a result, a matrix of elements and constructs is generated. This technique is fl exible to many areas of applications, also within organizational context including job analysis, employment selection, introduction of new manufacturing practices (Cassell & Walsh, 2004) and during focus group interviews (Kandola, 2012).
Laddering. The main aim of this technique is to identify the values behind consumer’s choices, starting with the description of the phenomena through its consequences or to identify attributes of the phenomena driven from values. In generic form of this technique, a researcher may start with questions about reasons of some behaviors (e.g., of choosing a given product), then he or she asks why these features/issues are important and again asks about the importance of the identifi ed features. The aim is to establish the chain: attribute → consequences → values. This technique is based on means-end chain theory developed by Gutman (Bagozzi, Gürhan-Canli & Priester, 2002; Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Seemingly easy, this technique carries some threats, e.g., it requires much comfort of a participant, it is less appropriate for group interviewing, although some elements of laddering may be used to understand better the meaning of some issues and perception of its consequences or values.
Projective techniques. The term “projective techniques” is derived from psychology; however, it was popularized in market research with meaning of any type of indirect questioning or form of questioning that encourages participants to project their beliefs to stimuli material (Maison, 2010). For instance, in the technique of associations, the researcher asks about fi rst or the key
associations with something (e.g., with organization, brand, category such
as bank, notions such as corporate values) with an assumption that the fi rst associations are the top of mind notions, or that the key associations constitute the core of notion (e.g., positive vs. negative, rich or poor, their content). This technique is also useful as a starting point to any topic as it liberates broad scope of spontaneous beliefs. The wide range of applications has also collage. In this technique a participant chooses pictures (non-standardized or standardized) to fi t to some concept. Then the pictures and meaning for a concept are described and completed with reasons of choice. In turn, in the uncompleted sentences technique, participants are asked to complete one to several (not too many) sentences, that are earlier prepared by the researcher. In techniques such as
personifi cation, animalization or Chinese portrait, the participant’s task
is to imagine and describe a brand, product, etc. as a person, animal or any other object (e.g., car, doors, town, planet), respectively. The aim of revealing
relationships between objects is served by projective techniques such as brand
party (participant’s task is to imagine some objects as people who joined
a (private or business) party and to describe these persons in terms of their group role and their attitudes toward others), family game (objects become family members and a participant describes their family roles and relationships), or photo sorting (a participant matches pre-chosen photos (of persons, objects, symbols, etc.) with some categories (e.g., to 2–4 brands or concepts).
In the consumer behavior research, projective techniques serve mainly to investigate participants’ beliefs, emotions, motives and meaning of some phenomena, and to reveal implicit attitudes including brand image and category image (Maison, 2010). However, the value of projective techniques including metaphors and the usage of visual data is appreciated also by researchers of organization. As a fi eld for their application, one may fi nd the picturesque
metaphorical presentation of beliefs as a support for more insightful
discussion and insight in the situation of limited data and diffi culty in generating ideas and topics such as organizational culture, reactions to changes and spread of informational technology (Thorpe & Holt, 2008). Frame 5.3. presents two examples of academic research involving projective, e-techniques – one from marketing research fi eld and one from the study of organization.
Frame 5.4. Two examples of usage of projective techniques in academic research
Marzena Feldy (2012) conducted 20 individual in-depth interviews to identify the image of “the Internet shop”. Interviews involved users of Internet shops (buying in an Internet shop at least twice during last 12 months), inhabitants of the capital of Poland differing in sex and age (18–24 years old and 25–34 years old). To have insight into content, benefi ts and emotions regarding Internet shopping, the author applied three projective techniques: spontaneous associations, animalization, technique “Planet” (creative description of the “world of the Internet shop”).
Oswick and Montgomery (1999) conducted a case study research to understand the perception of organizational change and corporate strategy. The study involved employees drawn from the four main manufacturing sites of a UK subsidiary of a large USA multinational including managers, supervisors and team leaders. Researchers applied two techniques to gain insight into participants’ beliefs about organization: animalization and Chinese portrait (comparison of organization to the part of the car). To obtain answers they used paper-and-pencil technique including questions about a metaphor and reasons.
5.4. Better insight into the phenomena via questioning and supporting techniques The description of projective techniques sounds fascinating and rather simple, but their application during interview (not even saying about analysis and interpretation) requires much skills. To obtain the desirable effect of gaining implicit attitudes, an interviewer has to be convinced about the chosen technique, introduces it, conducts and discusses it appropriately to enable in-depth insight (Maison, 2010). Simple questioning without mentioned background may serve rather as a metaphor than deep insight into attitudes. Despite the undoubted value, the application of projective techniques evokes some doubts among academics also in consumer research fi eld (Perkins, Forehand, Greenwald, & Maison, 2008).
Scaled questions. Some researchers use also scaled questions during
qualitative interviewing. This type of questions may serve to summarize the overall perceptions of a given issue (Perry, 1998; Yin, 2003) or to facilitate further discussion about the topic. They may include concepts spontaneously used by a participant as well as added ones. For instance, the researcher may ask “how the employees’ evaluation process is carried out” with a scale anchoring from 1 that means ‘informal’ to 5 meaning ‘formal.’ It is worth supplementing the Likert scaled closed question with the question about the way of understanding of each anchor, e.g., “and what do you mean by “formal”/“informal” employees evaluation process”?, what may be very helpful to understand differences between participants.
As a concluding point, it is worth emphasizing that the success of the projective and supportive techniques depends on some factors, such as the proper choice for a given research goals, comfort of participants and interviewers with the application of the given technique, the skills of the interviewer/moderator in introducing a technique to participants.
KEY POINTS
During the development of topic guide and interviewing the researcher should remember to put questions in the logical order, start from general questions and then go to more detailed supporting issues, questions and to probing (funnel rule), use mainly open questions and ask them neutrally. To have a better insight into the phenomena, particularly in participant’s perspective, the researcher may choose among wide range of supporting techniques, which may facilitate access to implicit reasoning.
More about sorting techniques can be read in the publications by Seonaidh McDonald et al. (2004) and Rugg & McGeorge (2005). More about supporting and projective techniques applied inmarket research context can be found in Malhotra & Birks (2007)
or in Polish literature such as the book by Dominika Maison (2010), texts by Iwona Wyrzykowska (2007) and Matt Wójcik (2007). More about projective techniques in management setting including references can be found in the dictionary by Richard Thorpe and Robin Holt (2008).
Persons who are interested in concept, procedures and examples of critical incident technique may read the text by Elisabeth Chell (2004) and the text by Binna Kandola (2012) pertaining to its application during focus group interviews.