Qualitative research interviews

Qualitative research interviews versus clinical interviews

Qualitative research interviews (QRIs) involve gathering information and facts (Targum, 2011; Weiss, 1994), eliciting stories (Birch & Miller, 2000; Romanoff, 2001), and learning about meanings, emotions, experiences, and relationships (Weiss, 1994) that cannot easily be observed (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). Interviewers engage in active, supportive listening that involves paraphrasing and probing to develop rapport and encourage in-depth discussion (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). These qualities are similar to clinical interviews and therapy sessions that also highlight rapport building, openness (Egan, 1994; Targum, 2011; Weiss, 1994), and shared understanding (Egan, 1994; MacKinnon, Michels, & Buckley, 2009).

However, QRIs differ from clinical interviews in substantial ways. First, QRIs are intended to gather information rather than help participants; they do not offer advice (Weiss, 1994) or treatment plans (Targum, 2011). Also, qualitative researchers hear about events, situations, and information relevant to participants and the study, as opposed to discussing internal states and processing previous sources of these states in therapy (Weiss, 1994). Finally, the relationship between the interviewee and the therapist or researcher is different. Therapists become authority figures, responsible for life changes (Ferrara, 1994) and improvement (Weiss, 1994); they seek to enable affective experiencing, cognitive mastery, and behavioral regulation (Karasu, 1986). Qualitative research interviewers are more equal partners in an intersubjective storytelling experience (Haynes, 2006; Weiss, 1994) and participate in the “joint construction of meaning” (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002, p. 17).

Therapeutic value in qualitative research interviews

Despite differences between therapy and research interviews, and considering the similarities in approach and outcomes, I argue that participating in QRIs can be inherently therapeutic. Moreover, qualitative researchers must acknowledge this therapeutic possibility because it can and should affect participants’ reactions, interviewers’ approaches, and how researchers can make a difference in people’s lives.

Similar to clinical interviews, the QRI context is a space for sharing stories, which can provide rich information for researchers and serve a healing meaning-making function for participants (Gale, 1992). Talking to another person can be cathartic (Hutchinson, Wilson, & Wilson, 1994; Weiss, 1994), as it encourages emotional release and can make people feel better (Kottler, 1991). This is similar to the therapeutic value of writing (e.g., Pennebaker, 1997, 2004). Sharing information, stories, and experiences can also raise self-awareness (Hutchinson et al., 1994; Weiss, 1994), help individuals better understand their situations (Birch & Miller, 2000; MacKinnon et al., 2009), find a sense of purpose (Hutchinson et al., 1994), and even change their thinking patterns (Pennebaker, 1997). This organization of thoughts can incite new perspectives (Egan, 1994), promote resolutions (Birch & Miller, 2000), and act as an agent for change (Romanoff, 2001). The QRI is not therapy, but it is therapeutic in that it offers a space for catharsis through sharing. As Varallo, Berlin Ray, and Hartman Ellis claim, “Speaking does much more than transfer information from the interviewee to the interviewer; it has the potential to transform the interviewee” (1998, p. 261).

Participant perspectives on qualitative research interviews

The therapeutic value of QRIs became apparent to me after conducting interviews with military wives on their experiences with spousal deployment. After multiple respondents provided unsolicited reactions to participating in interviews, I sought reactions from all participants. Similar to other researchers (e.g., Birch & Miller, 2000; Haynes, 2006), post-interview responses allowed me to directly witness the therapeutic potential of my research. Sharing the following interview excerpts allows me to illustrate, from participants’ perspectives, the claims I have made regarding the therapeutic value of qualitative interviews and research:

These participants’ reactions alone reinforce my argument that QRIs have therapeutic value and offer participants an outlet to reflect on experiences and share feelings with a neutral, interested party. Importantly, participants qualified this process as positive, therapeutic, and relieving. Some also felt they gained self-awareness and could help themselves and others through participating:

One participant even highlighted how the interview may have acted as an agent for change:

The interview promoted consideration of behavioral change for this participant (e.g., therapy and letting go of resentment). It also made her think about how she could learn more to help herself and others improve future experiences. This is akin to transformative effects for incest survivors who participated in interviews and expressed hope that their participation could help others and produce change beyond the self (Varallo et al., 1998).

This evidence does not suggest QRIs are a panacea. Although I did not receive negative responses from participants, it could be that those who did not offer feedback experienced the interview as innocuous or even suffered negative reactions. These possibilities, along with other indicators of negative reactions to research, should be investigated in order to minimize participant harm. Harmful reactions to QRIs might include regret, exhaustion (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998), painful memories (Dyregrov, 2004; Weiss, 1994), negative emotions and/or distress (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Newman & Kaloupek, 2004), or destructive behavior (Newman & Kaloupek, 2004). However, similar to investigations of reactions to interviews on sensitive topics and with vulnerable populations (e.g., Newman & Kaloupek, 2004), I received positive feedback—focused on the therapeutic and reflective functions of participation. These reactions prompted me to further consider the role of my research in others’ lives and contemplate this alternative perspective on the value of QRIs more generally.

The researcher’s role in promoting therapeutic value

Glesne and Peshkin state, “Although researchers do not wittingly assume the role of therapist, they nonetheless fashion an interview process that can be strikingly therapeutic” (1992, p. 123). I argue that the therapeutic outcomes of the interview process are based on the roles and strategies of the qualitative researcher. Although natural and perhaps unavoidable, they need to be recognized—particularly when working with vulnerable populations.

Many clients say that understanding (Egan, 1994), warmth, and caring (Kottler, 1991) can be the most helpful aspects of therapy. Researchers can promote similar therapeutic effects. Acting as a nonjudgmental (Ferrara, 1994; Kottler, 1991), neutral (Weiss, 1994), empathic, respectful, and active listener (Egan, 1994; Haynes, 2006), who does not interrupt or offer advice (Targum, 2011; Weiss, 1994), can foster openness and heighten the therapeutic potential of the QRI process. Empathy and reassurance, both important to therapy, are shown through back-channel cues (e.g., “mmhm”), paraphrasing, probing (Egan, 1994; Ferrara, 1994), and developing rapport (MacKinnon et al., 2009)—all skills for conducting QRIs (Baxter & Babbie, 2003; Targum, 2011). Consequently, even when maintaining neutrality, researchers might show empathy and reassurance, which can be supportive to participants and produce fuller sources of insight that are valuable to the research results (Haynes, 2006).

It might be accurate that QRI goals differ from therapeutic interview goals. Qualitative interviewers seek to understand human behavior, elicit information and meaning, and learn from participants; therapists champion change and aim to educate and help the client (Romanoff, 2001; Weiss, 1994). However, the process of reaching these goals may be similar, leading to similar therapeutic results. Through the QRI process, we try to build rapport with, listen to, and understand our participants. In doing so, we can offer an open, neutral space for in-depth reflection and interaction that may promote positive psychological change (Birch & Miller, 2000) while also strengthening the validity of our data. If we embrace this process and potential, even when it proves difficult, we will strengthen our skills as empathic learners of others’ experiences and co-constructors of their stories. Consequently, I believe we will go beyond offering therapeutic value to our participants and improve the capacity for translational research based on the rich, personal information we uncover.

Challenges for qualitative researchers

Although QRIs may naturally be therapeutic for participants, and offer rich data, this quality can pose challenges to interviewers. As researchers encourage sensitive disclosures, role confusion may occur (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputton, 2006; Weiss, 1994). Participants could mistake the interview as therapy and, as such, the interviewer as a therapist. Researchers must carefully maintain boundaries to protect the researcher–participant relationship and ethical obligations to do no harm (Birch & Miller, 2000; Dickson-Swift et al., 2006; Haynes, 2006). Boundaries can be achieved through minimizing personal disclosure, debriefing (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006), recognizing distress signals (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998), drawing back when responses become negative (Haynes, 2006), and being direct about the research relationship. Because researchers are not trained counselors, they might experience emotional vulnerability, guilt, fatigue, and burnout (Dickson-Swift et al., 2006). The researcher’s role is listener, learner, and observer, not counselor or therapist. A list of local counseling resources should be available for participants to highlight this distinction.

Final considerations

In contrast to Targum’s view that “every effort to restrict clinical benefit accrued during the interview process is warranted” (2011, p. 43), I argue that we must maneuver carefully through the QRI process and our actions, knowing we may be the impetus of positive change for participants who share their experiences with us. We need to consider, acknowledge, and develop the therapeutic value of QRIs, and other interview approaches, even if this creates difficulties. For example, interactive interviews often involve reciprocal sharing between the researcher and researched (Ellis, Kiesinger, & Tillmann-Healy, 1997), and reflexive interviews “transform information into shared experiences” that can have effects on people (Denzin, 2001, p. 24). These qualities might heighten emotional and therapeutic dimensions, introduce further boundary ambiguity, or produce varied reactions to the interview process. I invite researchers working from different approaches to ask similar questions regarding the value of their research process. Different perspectives will help further our understanding of the therapeutic potential of interviewing and the challenges that come with it.

Not every interview will be therapeutic. As research interviewers, we may reside within a spectrum between information collectors, empathic listeners, and subjectively embedded and affected story builders. Wherever we find ourselves, we are ethically responsible to recognize the change that can occur through our inquiries in order to best serve our participants and produce valid, representative interpretations of our data. Evaluating the therapeutic value of qualitative research has been a fruitful process for me. I hope that in sharing my perspective others will also consider their methodological approaches and further strengthen the inherent benefits and buffer the potential challenges associated with their own research.