CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 154Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesFocus Groups and Qualitative Methods

Whose voices? Whose knowledge? A feminist analysis of the value of key informant interviews

Open access
Lokot, Michelle·2021·International Journal of Qualitative Methods
DOI 10.1177/1609406920948775
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Key informant interviews are a stalwart of qualitative research, particularly policy-focused research. So ubiquitous is this research method that it is sometimes taken for granted that key informants indeed have important knowledge and value. This commentary interrogates the emphasis that is sometimes placed on key informant interviews over other qualitative research methods, asking important questions including: why are these informants “key,” and who says they are “key”? This article uses a feminist lens to analyze key informant interviews, suggesting that the power and privilege surrounding key informants might inadvertently lead to key informant interviews being less participatory and more infused with vested interests than researchers might admit. Within the hierarchy of research methods, key informant interviews may be positioned as producing more valuable knowledge because of the status and expertise of the person being interviewed. Their “expert” status may lead to assumptions that key informants understand and represent their communities. This article draws attention to the gendered consequences of prioritizing the knowledge of key informants, contrasting this with feminist perspectives on knowledge production which value the voices and perspectives of “ordinary” community members. This article also points to the methodological advantages which power-holders benefit from when they participate in key informant interviews compared to focus group discussions or surveys, advocating for greater community voice (especially women’s voice) through in-depth interviews with “ordinary” women and increased critical analysis of the limits of key informant interviews.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1609406920948775

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Key informants are valuable because they are culturally competent and strategically positioned sources of knowledge, providing situated knowledge on underlying dynamics of land-use change often not captured in previous studies.

    “Key informants are valuable not because they are”

    From Beyond the “supply chain” framing: Cattle ranching as a vanishing mediator of deforestation and dispossession in the Brazilian and Colombian Amazon (2026) · cites this paper as Lokot, 2021

    The Feminist Research Methods section describes key informants as sources of insider and contextual knowledge, and the Whither the Key Informant Interview? section says their interviews can provide insight into complex issues. The paper does not establish that key informants are culturally competent or discuss land-use change or gaps in previous land-use studies. It also cautions that their knowledge is shaped by power and privilege. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Armstrong, K. (2008). Ethnography and audience. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 54-67). Sage.
  2. Baden, S., & Goetz, A. M. (1997). Who needs [Sex] when you can have [Gender]? Conflicting discourses on gender at Beijing. Fem- inist Review, 56, 3-25.
  3. Beetham, G., & Demetriades, J. (2007). Feminist research methodol- ogies and development: Overview and practical application. Gender & Development, 15(2), 199-216.
  4. Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Introduction: Expert interview-An introduction to a new methodological debate. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 1-13). Palgrave Macmillan.
  5. Brooks, A. (2006). Building knowledge and empowerment through women's lived experience. In P. L. Leavy & S. Hesse-Biber (Eds.), Feminist research practice: A primer (pp. 53-82). Sage.
  6. Brun, C., & Lund, R. (2010). Real-time research: Decolonising research practices-or just another spectacle of researcher-practi- tioner collaboration? Development in Practice, 20(7), 812-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2010.508107 · DOI
  7. Budgeon, S. (2014). The Dynamics of gender hegemony: Feminin- ities, masculinities and social change. Sociology, 48(2), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513490358 · DOI
  8. Carbin, M., & Edenheim, S. (2013). The intersectional turn in feminist theory: A dream of a common language. European Journal of Women's Studies, 20(3), 233-248.
  9. Chambers, R. (2009). So that the poor count more: Using participatory methods for impact evaluation. Journal of Development Effective- ness, 1(3), 243-246.
  10. Comes, T. (2016). Cognitive biases in humanitarian sensemaking and decision-making: Lessons from field research. In IEEE interna- tional multi-disciplinary conference on cognitive methods in situ- ation awareness and decision support (pp. 56-62). https://doi.org. 10.1109/COGSIMA.2016.7497786 · DOI
  11. Cornwall, A., & Fujita, M. (2012). Ventriloquising "the poor"? Of voices, choices and the politics of "participatory" knowledge pro- duction. Third World Quarterly, 33(9), 1751-1765. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01436597.2012.721274 · DOI
  12. Devault, M. (1990). Talking and listening from women's standpoint: Feminist strategies for interviewing and analysis. Social Problems, 37(1), 96-116.
  13. Doná, G. (2007). The microphysics of participation in refugee research. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 210-229. https://doi. org/10.1093/jrs/fem013 · DOI
  14. Doucet, A., & Mauthner, N. (2008). Qualitative interviewing and fem- inist research. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 328-343).
  15. Gilchrist, V., & Williams, R. (1999). Key informant interviews. In B. Crabtree & W. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 71-88). Sage.
  16. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. In E. F. Keller & H. E. Longino (Eds.), Feminism and science (pp. 249-263). Oxford University Press.
  17. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women's lives. Cornell University Press.
  18. Hesse-Biber, S., & Leckenby, D. (2004). How feminists practice social research. In Feminist perpectives on social research (pp. 209-226). Oxford University Press.
  19. Hunter, A. (1993). Local knowledge and local power. Notes on the ethnography of local community elites. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(1), 36-58.
  20. Ikonen, H. M., & Ojala, H. (2007). Creating togetherness and experi- encing difference in feminist interviews-Knowing in a post- standpoint way? Graduate Journal of Social Science, 4(2), 80-103.
  21. Kristensen, G. K., & Ravn, M. N. (2015). The voices heard and the voices silenced: Recruitment processes in qualitative interview studies. Qualitative Research, 15(6), 722-737.
  22. Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice. Open University Press.
  23. Marshall, M. (1996). The key informant technique. Family Practice, 13(1), 92-97.
  24. Mauthner, N., & Doucet, A. (1998). Reflections on a voice-centred relational method. Analysing maternal and domestic voices. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research. Public knowledge and private lives (pp. 119-146). Sage.
  25. Mayoux, L., & Chambers, R. (2005). Reversing the paradigm: Quan- tification, participatory methods and pro-poor impact assessment. Journal of International Development, 17, 271-298.
  26. McKenna, S., Iwasaki, P. G., Stewart, T., & Main, D. S. (2011). Key informants and community members in community-based partici- patory research: One is not like the other. Progress in community health partnerships: research, education, and action, 5(4), 387-397.
  27. Merry, S. E. (2016). The seductions of quantification: Measuring human rights, gender violence, and sex trafficking. University of Chicago Press.
  28. Meuser, M., & Nagel, A. (2009). The expert interview and changes in knowledge production. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 17-42). Palgrave Macmillan.
  29. Montell, F. (1999). Focus group interviews: A new feminist method. National Women's Studies Association Journal, 11(1), 47-71.
  30. Morris, Z. (2009). The truth about interviewing elites. Politics, 29(3), 209-217.
  31. Morse, Y. L. (2019). Elite interviews in the developing world: Finding anchors in weak institutional environments. Qualitative Research, 19(3), 277-291.
  32. Narayan, U. (2004). The Project of feminist epistemology: Perspec- tives from a non-western feminist. In S. Harding (Ed.), The Fem- inist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (pp. 213-224). Routledge.
  33. Poggie, J. (1972). Toward quality control in key informant data. Human Organization, 13(1), 23-30.
  34. Rahnema, M. (1992a). Participation. In W. Sachs (Ed.), The develop- ment dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 116-131).
  35. Rahnema, M. (1992b). Poverty. In W. Wolfgang (Ed.), The develop- ment dictionary: A guide to knowledge as power (pp. 158-176).
  36. Scott, J. W. (1991). The evidence of experience. Critical inquiry, 17(4), 773-797.
  37. Sharrock, W. (1974). On owning knowledge. In R. Turner (Ed.), Eth- nomethodology: Selected readings (pp. 45-53). Penguin Books.
  38. Smithson, J. (2000). Using and analysing focus groups: Limitations and possibilities. International Journal of Social Research Meth- odology, 3(2), 103-119.
  39. Smithson, J. (2008). Focus groups. In P. Alasuutari, L. Bickman, & J. Brannen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social research methods (pp. 357-370). SAGE Publications.
  40. Soucy, A. (2000). The Problem with key informants. Anthropological Forum, 10(2), 179-199.
  41. Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1990). Method, methodology and epistemol- ogy in feminist research processes. In L. Stanley (Ed.), Feminist praxis. Research, theory and epistemology in feminist sociology (pp. 20-60). Routledge.
  42. Stephens, C. (2010). Privilege and status in an unequal society: Shift- ing the focus of health promotion research to include the mainte- nance of advantage. Journal of Health Psychology, 17(7), 993-1000.
  43. Taylor, G. A., & Blake, B. J. (2015). Key informant interviews and focus groups. In M. De Chesnay (Ed.), Nursing research using data analysis. Qualitative designs and methods in nursing (pp. 153-165). Springer.
  44. Tremblay, M. A. (1982). The key informant technique: A non- ethnographic application. In R. Burgess (Ed.), Field research: A sourcebook and field manual (pp. 151-161). Routledge.
  45. Vindrola-Padros, C., & Vindrola-Padros, B. (2018). Quick and dirty? A systematic review of the use of rapid ethnographies in health- care organisation and delivery. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(4), 321-330.
  46. Wickramasinghe, M. (2010). Feminist research methodology. Making meanings of meaning-making. Routledge. Retrieved January 1, 2016, from http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?doc ID¼10349620

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lokot, M.
Affiliations
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
Corresponding author
Lokot, Michelle
ORCID
Lokot, Michelle
Venue
International Journal of Qualitative Methods
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-01-01
Volume
20
ISSN
1609-4069 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/1609406920948775
OpenAlex
W3089239260
Cited by
154
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 5
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Qualitative Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
UK Research and Innovation (ES/T00424X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
Keywords
key informant interviews, feminist research, power and privilege, knowledge production, community voice, women's voices, research hierarchy, policy research, focus groups

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