Interviewer–respondent Interactions in Conversational and Standardized Interviewing

Abstract

Standardized interviewing (SI) and conversational interviewing are two approaches to collect survey data that differ in how interviewers address respondent confusion. This article examines interviewer–respondent interactions that occur during these two techniques, focusing on requests for and provisions of clarification. The data derive from an experimental study in Germany, where the face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded. A sample of 111 interviews was coded in detail. We find that conversational interviewers do make use of the ability to clarify respondent confusion. Although the technique improved response accuracy in the main study compared to SI, conversational interviewers seem to provide clarifications even when there is no evidence of respondent confusion. This may lengthen administration time and potentially increase data collection costs. Conversational interviewers also employ neutral probes, which are generally associated with standardized interviews, at an unexpectedly high rate. We conclude with suggestions for practice and directions for future research.

Can Conversational Interviewing Improve Survey Response Quality Without Increasing Interviewer Effects?

“…In terms of interview duration, the CI technique resulted in interviews that were roughly 1 min longer, on average, but this difference was not significant. This may have been due to the fact that many questions did not end up requiring extensive clarification from the interviewers (Mittereder et al ., ). The CI technique did result in higher within‐interviewer variance in interview length, which was expected, and marginally higher between‐interviewer variance in duration of interview (which also was expected).…”

“…the interviewers became better at using their assigned technique) after receiving this feedback. Overall, when analysing a subsample of these recordings in detail for interviewers in each of the two groups, we found that the CI and SI techniques had been implemented correctly and consistently (Mittereder et al ., ).…”

“…Maynard et al (2010)). Although we coded the behaviours that were evident in a small sample of these interviews mainly as a means of technique verification (Mittereder et al, 2017), this did uncover some unexpected findings: for example, the conversational interviewers tended to use neutral probes at a higher rate than expected when faced with a question or confusion. Was this because specific clarification was not needed?…”

Mode and Interviewer Effects in Egocentric Network Research

“…We first examine interviewer effects across our 10 interviewers and afterward ask whether they help explain the mode effect on the volume of names. Studies suggest that interviewer effects result from differences among interviewers in building rapport, persuading respondents to answer sensitive questions (West and Blom 2017), probing for detail (Houtkoop-Steenstra 1996; Van der Zouwen and Van Tilburg 2001), and getting clarifications (Mittereder et al 2017). Other studies suggest that network differences arise if some interviewers learn to shorten interviews by eliciting fewer names (Harling et al 2018; Josten and Trappman 2016; Valente et al 2017).…”

Using Causal Mapping in the Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews

“…The popularity of interviews as a source of data about management and organizations has translated into a rich coverage of this method in methodological literature, including the work which address interviews with respect to reflexive interpretation (Alvesson, 2003(Alvesson, , 2011, sampling (Saunders & Townsend, 2016), data collection (Bourne & Jenkins, 2005), or managing the interview situation (Dundon & Ryan, 2010;Mittereder, Durow, West, Kreuter, & Conrad, 2017).…”