A face-to-face definition, and what is gained or lost

An interview, the notes say, is a face-to-face interaction whose aim is to get data. The interviewer reads the questions aloud and records the answers. That is unlike a questionnaire, which is left with the respondent to fill in.

Advantages they name include a wide sample, a high response rate, answers that can be complex or varied, a chance to control the setting, low dependence on the respondent, and a chance to gather supplementary material on the spot. Disadvantages include cumbersome procedures, the time and cost involved, results that depend on the interviewer’s skill, difficulty in collecting standardized data, and a lack of anonymity, so that answers to sensitive questions suffer.

A fixed schedule, no schedule, and a mix of the two

A standardized, or structured, directive interview is built on a schedule prepared in advance, so respondents are asked questions in a set order and wording, by the same procedure. Repeating the same order reduces accidental errors and makes differences among respondents easier to compare; reliability and objectivity are higher, and training interviewers is easier. Flexibility, though, is low: the method can hardly draw out how respondents organize what they know, so the chance of finding concrete or new information is small.

An unstandardized interview, by contrast, has no fixed questions or order, and takes a freer form that depends on the interviewer’s capacity. The interviewer must already know what is to be collected. Flexibility, the notes say, allows a “standardization of meaning” rather than a merely surface answer; validity of the result is higher, and the material can later feed a standardized interview. Reliability varies with the interviewer’s skill, and analysis is harder.

A semi-standardized interview was developed, they write, to offset the strengths and weaknesses of the other two: a set number of important questions are standardized, and the remaining questions are not.

Who is chosen, how they are trained, and what happens in the room

When interviewers are chosen, average or completion time should be estimated, and a budget drawn if they are to be paid. An objective match — similar sex or region to the respondents — is named, along with health, because the work is physically demanding, and subjective qualities: honesty, and a capacity to record clearly. Training is preferably done in a group, which saves time and lets problems be shared; the nature and importance of the study should be explained, practice done in teams, and role-play used as the best simulation. Unsafe places should be avoided and left to the researcher.

Cooperation is first sought through community groups, then resident lists are taken from community centers or public-health offices for sampling. With individuals, a visit time is appointed, a good impression made, the basics of the study introduced, and a new time set if needed. In the room, tone and communication matter; the interviewer should be composed, but not overly stern. In a standardized interview the question order is not changed, yet the sheet is not merely read aloud. If the respondent asks a question back, an answer is promised after the interview. Enough time is given, but not too much. If a question is misunderstood, it is repeated, then simplified. If an answer contradicts an earlier one, the interviewer confirms rather than accuses. If the topic drifts, the point is acknowledged and the talk brought back. Rapport is kept throughout.

Probing is the technique of asking a further question when an answer is thin or unclear, so that a fuller answer can be heard. Brief assenting prompts are named; if evasion continues, silent pressure is said to be acceptable, and clarity is prompted when answers are vague. If a standardized interview was used, the record follows the order of the schedule; if unstandardized, it should be written with systematic care. No years or named theorists are added beyond what the unique body gives. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.

Sources

1. Notes on the interview as a method: a definition, advantages and disadvantages, and three forms — standardized, unstandardized, and semi-standardized.
2. Selection and training of interviewers, including group training, role-play, and safety; and how cooperation is sought through community groups and official resident lists.
3. Technique in the room, probing when answers run thin, and how results are recorded, without added years or named theorists.

Last updated: 14 November 2026