Qualitative interviews in psychology: problems and possibilities
Open accessAbstract
This paper distinguishes a series of contingent and necessary problems that arise in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of open-ended or conversational qualitative interviews in psychological research. Contingent problems in the reporting of interviews include: (1) the deletion of the interviewer; (2) the conventions for representing interaction; (3) the specificity of analytic observations; (4) the unavailability of the interview set-up; (5) the failure to consider interviews as interaction. Necessary problems include: (1) the flooding of the interview with social science agendas and categories; (2) the complex and varying footing positions of interviewer and interviewee; (3) the orientations to stake and interest on the part of the interviewer and interviewee; (4) the reproduction of cognitivism. The paper ends with two kinds of recommendation. First, we argue that interviews should be studied as an interactional object, and that study should feed back into the design, conduct and analysis of interviews so that they can be used more effectively in cases where they are the most appropriate data gathering tools. Second, these problems with open-ended interviews highlight a range of specific virtues of basing analysis on naturalistic materials. Reasons for moving away from the use of interviews for many research questions are described.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
DP typically focuses on naturalistic data due to a number of problems associated with interviews.
“In contrast, DP typically focuses on ' naturalistic data ' due to a number of problems associated with interviews (see Potter & Hepburn, 2005).”
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 Potter & Hepburn, 2005
Cites
From naturally occurring data to naturally organized ordinary activities: comment on Speer
Lynch, M. (2002) · Discourse Studies · doi:10.1177/14614456020040040801 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Considering quality in qualitative interviewing
Roulston, K. (2010) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794109356739 · Cited by 535 · see citing works
Swann, C., Crust, L., Jackman, P., Vella, S. A., Allen, M. S., & Keegan, R. (2017) · Journal of Applied Sport Psychology · doi:10.1080/10413200.2016.1272650 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Sapountzis, A., & Condor, S. (2013) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12015 · Cited by 126 · 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
“In contrast, DP typically focuses on ‘ naturalistic data ’ due to a number of problems associated with interviews (see Potter & Hepburn, 2005).”
Jiang, A., Li, S., Wang, H., Ni, H., Chen, H., Dai, J., Xu, X., Li, M., & Dong, G.-H. (2025) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/66341 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Potter, J., & Hepburn, A.
- Affiliations
- Loughborough University (GB)
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 281-307
- ISSN
- 1478-0887 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-0895
- OpenAlex
- W2029750302
- Cited by
- 823
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 53 · 2014: 60 · 2013: 55 · 2012: 58
- FWCI
- 53.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.lboro.ac.uk
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Qualitative Research in Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- qualitative interviews, open-ended interviews, interview design, interview analysis, interviewer-interviewee interaction, cognitivism, naturalistic data, conversation analysis
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