Notes on Writing Semi-Structured Interview Schedules

Useful Introductions to Qualitative Research

• Box 1 (from Bearman 2019): useful introductory qualitative research texts include:
  • Ng, S., Baker, L., Cristancho, S., Kennedy, T. J., & Lingard, L. (2019). Qualitative research in medical education: Methodologies and methods. In Understanding medical education: Evidence, theory, and practice (pp. 427–442). Wiley.
  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Sage.
  • Savin-Baden, M., & Major, H. M. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
• Purpose of Bearman’s paper: present a framework for preparing a semi-structured interview schedule for novice researchers aiming to publish qualitative findings; interview schedules should encourage data that reach beyond superficial descriptions to generate informative, novel accounts of the phenomenon of interest (Schultze & Avital, 2011).
• Relationship to broader qualitative work: interview schedules are part of broader qualitative approaches, but schedules can impede a study if they elicit the wrong kind of data.

What is qualitative research?

• Qualitative research can be viewed as “the systematic study of social phenomena, expressed in ways that qualify—describe, illuminate, explain, explore—the object of study” (Bearman, 2019).
• It includes understanding meanings, interpretations and subjective experiences of individuals (Liamputtong, 2009).
• Distinction examples: qualitative data can illuminate why a teenager starts smoking but not how many smoke or at what age; qualitative labels include grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography (Charmaz, van Manen, Geertz).
• Distinction: methodology vs. method. Methodology = system of methods; method = a particular procedure.

Aiming for rich experiential data

• Aim: collect thick, rich data that captures lived experiences (thick description) and actor intentionality (Geertz, 1973; Schultze & Avital, 2011).
• Experiential data vs. opinions: examples show the value of asking about experiences rather than generic opinions to reveal social meanings and long-term resonance.
• Example contrast:
  • Opinion-like prompt: “What are your views of simulation as a learning method?”
  • Experiential prompt: “What was your most powerful experience of simulation as a health professional?”
• The recounting of events anchors data in time and place while recognizing interpretation by participant and researcher.
• Reconstructed data: interview data reflect perspectives about events, not an objective recounting of what happened; both participant and researcher interpretation are acknowledged.

Effective semi-structured interview schedules

• Goal: generate rich, thick description via meaningful prompts that matter to participants and invite nuanced responses.
• Open-ended questions are preferred to minimize predetermined responses (Patton, 2002):
  • Example: instead of asking, "Did you have a positive learning experience in your first intensive care rotation?", ask, "What is a recent example of a learning experience you had in the intensive care environment?"
• Probes and valence: even open-ended prompts can have directionality; be mindful of whether to probe for alternatives (e.g., asking about both positive and negative experiences).
• Interview as an inter-view (Kvale, 2017): an exchange of views; expect that participants may have different ideas about what's meaningful; adjust accordingly.
• Improvisation: semi-structured interviewing often requires interviewer judgments about what to expand and which thread to follow; the most effective questions enable improvisation.

How to frame questions: Generative pronouns (Box 2)

• Generative prompts rely on what/how; avoid did, is, are, etc., unless paired with an open-ended follow-up.
• Starter prompts:
  • Tell me about …
  • How did you come to know that intensive care was a possible career pathway?
• Examples of open-ended questions (more generative):
  • Tell me about a recent learning experience in your intensive care rotation.
  • How did you come to know that intensive care was a possible career pathway?
• Examples of closed questions (yes/no) to be paired with open-ended prompts:
  • Did you have a positive learning experience in intensive care?
  • Is intensive care a possible career pathway for you?
• Example of closed–open pairs:
  • Did you have a positive learning experience in intensive care? Tell me about it.
  • Is intensive care a possible career pathway for you? How did you come to know this?

A step-wise approach to writing a semi-structured interview schedule

• Three steps (often overlapping in practice) to elicit rich experiential data:
  • Step 1: Articulate questions around a core event or series of events illustrating the phenomenon of interest.
  • Step 2: Find an intuitive conversational structure to flow like natural conversation.
  • Step 3: Refine the schedule through piloting and revision.

Step 1: Articulate questions around a core event or series of events

• Core focus: descriptions of lived experiences (not abstract opinions).
• Elicit data about actual experiences with a clear time frame; recent experiences tend to yield richer data; consider asking participants to bring artefacts to prompt memory.
• Brainstorm core questions related to the experience; stems include:
  • Tell me about …
  • Where were you when …
  • Who was with you when …
  • What happened after …
  • What did you say or do when …
  • How did you feel when …
  • What reasons did you have for …
• Framing the phenomenon of interest: ensure it makes sense to participants (e.g., “Tell me about a moment when you really began to feel that you were a nurse”).

Step 2: Finding an intuitive conversational structure

• Kvale (2007) suggests aiming for a natural conversational flow.
• Three-part structure for the schedule:
  1) Introduction: explanatory materials, consent, first questions (demographics sometimes in introduction or closing).
  2) Exploration of the core phenomenon: heart of the interview with brainstormed questions.
  3) Final reflections: abstract questions and any closing comments; may include contact details for incentives.
• Warm-up questions are critical: easy to answer and help frame the next section; they set rapport.
• After warm-ups, proceed to experiences of the core events; anchor discussion in concrete events.
• Probes as optional expansions to enable rich descriptions: e.g., Where were you? Who was there? When in training?
• Preference: start with concrete, accessible experiences; later move to more challenging/abstract questions; shorter schedules with more productive answers.
• Final reflections: often most generative; provide opportunity for open comments.

Step 3: Refine the schedule

• Not all initial questions will work as intended; pilot the schedule with similar participants to those you will study.
• If the sample size is small, avoid using pilot participants as data sources for the main study.
• Have pilot participants evaluate questions; use their feedback to reword or clarify items.
• Record pilots and review to identify dead or weak spots; consider multiple pilots with refinements between rounds.
• Annotated schedules: it can be useful to study existing schedules and adapt them; Box 3 provides ten heuristics to guide this process.

Box 2: Using Generative Pronouns in Qualitative Interviews

• General rule: use what/how to create open-ended prompts; avoid starting with did/is/are unless followed by an open-ended continuation.
• Starter prompt examples:
  • Tell me about a recent learning experience in your intensive care rotation.
  • How did you come to know that intensive care was a possible career pathway?
• Closed prompts (yes/no) paired with open-ended follow-up:
  • Did you have a positive learning experience in intensive care? Tell me about it.
  • Is intensive care a possible career pathway for you? How did you come to know this?
• The aim is to maximize generativity and reduce restriction of responses by premature closure.

Box 3: Ten Heuristics for Interview Schedules That Elicit Rich Data

1) Know your phenomenon of interest.
2) Aim for experiences rather than opinions.
3) Start with a good warm-up question.
4) Brainstorm around the experiences you want to know about.
5) Use open-ended questions.
6) Consider the valence of your questions.
7) Leave space for interviewers to improvise; probes can help.
8) Start concrete and easy, finish with abstract and hard.
9) Final reflections offer opportunities for interviewee open comment.
10) Pilot, adjust the schedule and pilot again.

Example Interview Schedule (Table 1) and its rationale

• The example explores how social media use influences learning among health professional students.
• Schedule is intended for a 30- to 45-minute interview (note: duration is $30\text{-}45\ minutes$).
• The Schedule and Rationale comprise questions placed in a sequence that moves from warm-up to core experiences to reflective and closing items.
• Example Schedule (items and rationale): 1) Thank you and consent/recording: includes a preface and logistics.
  • Rationale: establishes consent and sets the stage.
    2) How are you finding your studies? (Demographics check and warm-up)
  • Rationale: confirms the course/level and relationship with the profession; provides demographic data.
    3) I’m guessing you use social media in some form. Tell me about which platforms you use.
  • Rationale: identifies general platforms used.
    4) What main platforms do you use with respect to your study?
  • Rationale: senses the study-related usage patterns.
    5) Thinking back over the last month, tell me about a time when the main platform(s) helped with your studies.
  • Probes: What happened? Where were you? Who did you connect with? How did it help?
  • First substantive experience question.
    6) If relevant: What reasons did you have for using the main platforms to help your studies?
  • Rationale: differentiates deliberate use from incidental use.
    7) How typical is this scenario? What other ways does social media help your studies?
  • Rationale: assesses normality and breadth of experiences.
    8) In the last month, think of a time when the favorite platform interfered with your studies.
  • Probes: What happened? Where were you? Who did you connect with? How did it interfere?
    9) How typical is this interference? What other ways do social media impede your studies?
  • Rationale: balance positive and negative influences. 10) Thinking back over the last year of your studies: meaningful connections made through social media (with respect to study)?
    • Probes: influencers, existing friends, how it developed, what happened next.
      11) Reflecting on what we’ve discussed, what role does social media play overall in your learning as a health professional student?
    • Rationale: abstract, integrative reflection.
      12) Anything else you’d care to add?
    • Rationale: open comment opportunity for rich data.
      13) Record/confirm other demographics (Age bracket, First degree, Domestic or international, Gender)
    • Rationale: demographic checklist; helps with post-interview data organization.
• Note: The schedule includes a balance of warm-up, core experiences, and reflective prompts, with probes to guide improvisation.

Limitations

• Bearman notes that the approach is framed by her own experiences and expertise and may not generalize to all contexts (e.g., qualitative program evaluation focused on opinion rather than experiential data).
• The interview schedule is not contextualized by a particular theoretical framework in itself; readers should refer to broader qualitative texts for framing.
• If another qualitative approach is used (e.g., grounded theory), one must know its tenets beforehand and ensure alignment with the interview schedule.

Conclusions

• The paper provides practical steps, heuristics, and examples to write semi-structured interview schedules that generate rich, thick experiential data.
• While the guide offers useful concepts, there are no universal recipes; each project is unique and benefits from piloting and iterative refinement.

References (selected from the transcript)

• Bearman, M. (in press). Key concepts in qualitative research design. In D. Nestel et al. (Eds.), Healthcare simulation research: A practical guide. Basel, Switzerland: Springer.
• Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Bennett, S., Hall, M., Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Joughin, G. (2017). How university teachers design assessments: A cross-disciplinary study. Higher Education, 74(1), 49–64.
• Bearman, M., Greenhill, J., & Nestel, D. (2019). The power of simulation: A large-scale narrative analysis of learners’ experiences. Medical Education, 53(4), 369–379.
• Bochatay, N. et al. (2019). Exploring group boundaries and conflicts: A social identity theory perspective. Medical Education, 53(8), 799–807.
• Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic.
• Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Sage.
• Liamputtong, P. (2009). Qualitative research methods (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
• Schultze, U., & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1–16.
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Sage.
• van Manen, M. (2016). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). Routledge.