The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of Reciprocity and Risks when Dealing with Sensitive Topics
Open accessAbstract
Qualitative research using unstructured interviews is frequently reviewed by institutional review boards using criteria developed for biomedical research. Unlike biomedical studies, unstructured interactive interviews provide participants considerable control over the interview process, thereby creating a different risk profile. This article examines the interview process and literature for evidence of benefit and harm. Although there is evidence that qualitative interviews may cause some emotional distress, there is no indication that this distress is any greater than in everyday life or that it requires follow-up counseling, although the authors acknowledge distress is always a possibility. Essential to preventing participant distress is the researcher's interviewing skills and a code of ethics. When research is conducted with sensitivity and guided by ethics, it becomes a process with benefits to both participants and researchers. The authors conclude that qualitative research using unstructured interviews poses no greater risk than everyday life and expedited reviews are sufficient.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Interviews provide participants with an opportunity to narrate their experiences, prioritise their own constructions, express emotions, and process their experiences in a cathartic manner.
“Interviews provide participants with an opportunity to narrate their experiences, prioritise their own constructions, express emotions, and process their experiences in a cathartic manner (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Pilbeam et al., 2022).”
From Quality Criteria: General and Specific Guidelines for Qualitative Approaches in Psychology Research. A Concise Guide for Novice Researchers and Reviewers (2024) · cites this paper as Corbin & Morse, 2003
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Issues in Qualitative Research on Sensitive Topics
Cowles, K. V. (1988) · Western Journal of Nursing Research · doi:10.1177/019394598801000205 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 20
- Cieurzo, C., & Keitel, M. A. (1999). Ethics in qualitative research. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki (Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 61-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Davis, A. J. (1990). Ethical issues in nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 12, 413-416.
- Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47-78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Honeycutt, J. M. (1995). The oral history interview and reports of imagined interac- tions. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 6(4), 63-69.
- Hutchinson, H. A., Wilson, M. E., & Wilson, H. S. (1994). Benefits of participating in research interviews. Image Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 161-164.
- Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Introduction. In S. Kleinman & M. A. Copp (Eds.), Emotions and fieldwork (pp. 1-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Kvale, S. (1984). The qualitative research interview. Journal of Phenomenological Psychol- ogy, 14, 171-196.
- Larossa, R., Bennett, L. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1981). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 303-313.
- Lipson, J. G. (1994). Ethical issues in ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 333-355). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- May, K. A. (1989). Interview techniques in qualitative research: Concerns and chal- lenges. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue (pp. 171-182). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
- Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Mishler, E. G. (1999). Storylines: Craftists' narratives of identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Munhall, P. L. (1988). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10, 150-162.
- Morse, J. M. (2002). Interviewing the ill. In J. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 317-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. National Institute of Health. (1998). Cancer trials: Recommendation for development of informed consent form. Retrieved August 2002, from http//camcertrials.nci.nih.gov/ researchers/safeguards/consent/recs.html
- Rubinstein, R. L. (2002). The qualitative interview with older informants: Some key questions. In G. D. Rowles & N. E. Schoenberg (Eds.), Qualitative gerontology: A con- temporary perspective (pp. 137-153). New York: Springer.
- Schoenberg, N. F. (2002). Introduction Part IV. In G. D. Rowles & N. E. Schoenberg (Eds.), Qualitative gerontology: A contemporary perspective (pp. 130-135). New York: Springer.
- Shea, C. (2000). Don't talk to humans: The crackdown on social science research. Lingua Franca, 10(6), 27-34.
- Smith, L. (1992). Ethical issues in interviewing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 98-103.
- Thompson, B. (1995). Ethical dimensions in trauma research. American Sociologist, 26(2), 54-69.
- Janice M. Morse (Ph.D. [Nurs.], Ph.D. [Anthro], D.Nurs [Hon], FAAN) is the scientific director of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodol- ogy, Canadian Institutes of Health Research senior scientist, Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research senior health scientist, professor, faculty of nursing, University of Alberta, and the 1997 Sigma Theta Tau Episteme Lau- reate. She has published extensively in the areas of comfort, suffering, and qualitative methods and serves as coeditor of International Journal of Quali- tative Methods and editor of Qualitative Health Research. She has authored, coauthored, or edited 14 books, including Read Me First: A User's Guide to Qualitative Analysis (2002) with Lyn Richards, The Nature of Evidence in Qualitative Inquiry (2001), Completing a Qualitative Pro- ject: Details and Dialogue (1997), and Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods (1994).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry
Morse, J. M. (2015) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732315588501 · Cited by 2,809 · see citing works
Self-citationResearching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity
Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794111422107 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Alhazmi, A. A., & Kaufmann, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785134 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Which Patients and Where: A Qualitative Study of Patient Transfers from Community Hospitals
Bosk, E. A., Veinot, T., & Iwashyna, T. J. (2011) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31820fb71b · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Wolgemuth, J. R., Erdil-Moody, Z., Opsal, T., Cross, J. E., Kaanta, T., Dickmann, E. M., & Colomer, S. (2015) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794114524222 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
“Our findings aligned with the literature, primarily on the experiences of ‘vulnerable’ populations, in identifying several benefits of participation and few risks (e.g. Campbell et al., 2010; Carter et al., 2008; Corbin and Morse, 2003).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialUsing Talanoa in Pacific Business Research in new Zealand: Experiences with Tongan Entrepreneurs
Prescott, S. M. (2008) · AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · doi:10.1177/117718010800400111 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Cena, E., Brooks, J., Day, W., Goodman, S., Rousaki, A., Ruby-Granger, V., & Seymour-Smith, S. (2024) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069241282843 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“Interviews provide participants with an opportunity to narrate their experiences, prioritise their own constructions, express emotions, and process their experiences in a cathartic manner (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Pilbeam et al., 2022).”
Harm, Change and Unpredictability: The Ethics of Interviews in Conflict Research
Kostovicova, D., & Knott, E. (2022) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794120975657 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Pesqueira, L., Glasbergen, P., & Leroy, P. (2020) · Nonprofit Management and Leadership · doi:10.1002/nml.21395 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Corbin, J., & Morse, J. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Alberta (CA)
- ORCID
- Morse, Janice M.
- Venue
- Qualitative Inquiry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 335-354
- ISSN
- 1077-8004 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7565
- OpenAlex
- W2121752622
- Cited by
- 900
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 55 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 41
- FWCI
- 26.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Qualitative Inquiry (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Sigma Theta Tau International
- University of Alberta
- Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Keywords
- research ethics, institutional review board review, sensitive topics, participant distress, expedited review, research ethics codes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
