What is an In-Depth Interview?
In-depth interviewing is a qualitative research technique that involves conducting intensive
individual interviews with a small number of respondents to explore their perspectives on a
particular idea, program, or situation. For example, we might ask participants, staff, and others
associated with a program about their experiences and expectations related to the program, the
thoughts they have concerning program operations, processes, and outcomes, and about any
changes they perceive in themselves as a result of their involvement in the program.
When are In-Depth Interviews Appropriate?
In-depth interviews are useful when you want detailed information about a person’s
thoughts and behaviors or want to explore new issues in depth. Interviews are often used
to provide context to other data (such as outcome data), offering a more complete picture
of what happened in the program and why. For example, you may have measured an
increase in youth visits to a clinic, and through in-depth interviews you find out that a
youth noted that she went to the clinic because she saw a new sign outside of the clinic
advertising youth hours. You might also interview a clinic staff member to find out their
perspective on the clinic’s “youth friendliness.”
In-depth interviews should be used in place of focus groups if the potential participants
may not be included or comfortable talking openly in a group, or when you want to
distinguish individual (as opposed to group) opinions about the program. They are often
used to refine questions for future surveys of a particular group.
What are the Advantages and Limitations of In-Depth Interviews?
The primary advantage of in-depth interviews is that they provide much more detailed
information than what is available through other data collection methods, such as surveys.
They also may provide a more relaxed atmosphere in which to collect information—
people may feel more comfortable having a conversation with you about their program as
opposed to filling out a survey. However, there are a few limitations and pitfalls, each of
which is described below.
Prone to bias: Because program or clinic staff might want to “prove” that a program is
working, their interview responses might be biased. Responses from community members
and program participants could also be biased due to their stake in the program or for a
number of other reasons. Every effort should be made to design a data collection effort,
create instruments, and conduct interviews to allow for minimal bias.
Can be time-intensive: Interviews can be a time-intensive evaluation activity because of the
time it takes to conduct interviews, transcribe them, and analyze the results. In planning
PATHFINDER INTERNATIONAL: CONDUCTING IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS 3