Cited by 121Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Applications

Participants’ experiences of the qualitative interview: considering the importance of research paradigms

Open access
Wolgemuth, Jennifer R, Erdil-Moody, Zeynep, Opsal, Tara, Cross, Jennifer E, Kaanta, Tanya, Dickmann, Ellyn M, Colomer, Soria·2015·Qualitative Research

Abstract

We used a multiple-case study to investigate participants’ experiences in interviews from six qualitative studies that differed in interview orientations, designs, methods, participants, and topics. Roulston’s (2010a, 2010b) interview orientation heuristic guided our ‘paradigm-driven’ analysis of participants’ experiences. We found no differences in participants’ articulation of benefits and risks by interview orientation. Participants’ experiences differed based on the opportunity to reflect on their interview experiences, the sensitivity of the topic explored, and the number of interviews conducted. We discuss the implications of our findings for ‘paradigm-driven’ qualitative research and suggest ethical questions qualitative interview researchers can ask to maximize the benefits of their interviews.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1468794114524222

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

16 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolgemuth, J. R., Erdil-Moody, Z., Opsal, T., Cross, J. E., Kaanta, T., Dickmann, E. M., & Colomer, S.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • University of South Florida, USA
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Park University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (US)
Venue
Qualitative Research
Published
2014-02-21
Volume
15
Issue
3
Pages
351-372
ISSN
  • 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3109
OpenAlex
W2147660955
Cited by
121
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 3
FWCI
21.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Qualitative Research (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) (submittedVersion)
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
qualitative interviews, research paradigms, interview ethics, participant reflection

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