CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Researching the researcher-as-instrument: an exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity

Open access
Pezalla, Anne E, Pettigrew, Jonathan, Miller-Day, Michelle·2012·Qualitative Research
DOI 10.1177/1468794111422107PMC PMC4539962
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Because the researcher is the instrument in semistructured or unstructured qualitative interviews, unique researcher characteristics have the potential to influence the collection of empirical materials. This concept, although widely acknowledged, has garnered little systematic investigation. This article discusses the interviewer characteristics of three different interviewers who are part of a qualitative research team. The researcher/interviewers - and authors of this article - reflect on their own and each other's interviews and explore the ways in which individual interview practices create unique conversational spaces. The results suggest that certain interviewer characteristics may be more effective than others in eliciting detailed narratives from respondents depending on the perceived sensitivity of the topic, but that variation in interviewer characteristics may benefit rather than detract from the goals of team-based qualitative inquiry. The authors call for the inclusion of enhanced self-reflexivity in interviewer training and development activities and argue against standardization of interviewer practices in qualitative research teams.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1468794111422107

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Baptiste I (2001) Qualitative data analysis: common phases, strategic differences. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 2(3), Art. 22. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/965/2106
  2. Bergman MM, Coxon APM (2005) The quality in qualitative methods. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal] 6(2), Art. 34. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-05/05-2-34-e.htm
  3. deMarrais K, 2004, Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences, 51
  4. Graham H, 1983, The Public and the Private, 132
  5. Guba EG, 1981, Effective Evaluation, 128
  6. MacQueen KM, 1999, Cultural Anthropology Methods, 10, 31
  7. Miller-Day M, 2009, Paper presented at the Qualitative Inquiry in the Caribbean International Conference
  8. Pillow WS, 2003, International Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 16, 175
  9. Watts JH, 2008, Medical Sociology Online, 3, 3

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 362

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-04
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
165-185
ISSN
  • 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3109
DOI
10.1177/1468794111422107
PMC
PMC4539962
OpenAlex
W4319307929
Cited by
361
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 3
FWCI
50.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA021670)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
interviewer characteristics, qualitative interviews, interviewer training, narrative elicitation

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