Journal of Medical Imaging
and Radiation Sciences
Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
Directed Reading Article
Conducting a Research Interview
Amanda Bolderston, BSc, MSc, MRT(T), FCAMRTa*
a
British Columbia Cancer Agency, Surrey, British Columbia
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
By the end of this directed reading the learner will be able to:
1. Describe the advantages and disadvantages of interviews as
a qualitative research tool
2. Understand how to optimally conduct an individual and
group interview (focus group)
3. Know how to analyze and interpret interview data
*This article is a Directed Reading and provides 2 hours of Cate-
gory ‘‘A’’ RCEEM credits that may be applied to your professional
development credit program. To access the quiz questions, please ac-
tivate your online access to the journal at www.jmirs.org and select
CME-Online Exams. You will receive an automatically generated
certificate if a minimum grade of 75% is achieved on the quiz.
ABSTRACT
Interviews are a cornerstone of modern health care research and can
be used by both experienced and novice researchers to gather data for
projects. For qualitative research, the semistructured or unstructured
interview is often used and this can be carried out in various ways.
Methods discussed in this directed reading include the face-to-face
interview, group interviews such as focus groups, and remote inter-
view conducted by telephone or using the computer. These methods
are discussed in detail including advantages and disadvantages of
each as well as accompanying practical considerations. Regardless
of the method used, there are several matters to be considered in
the process of planning, conducting, and analyzing interviews. These
consist of initially selecting appropriate participants for the study,
preparing a research protocol, and writing useful interview questions
designed to capture the information required. It is also important for
the researcher to be able to develop and demonstrate rapport with the
participant and use attentive listening. Ethical issues relating to the
conduct of interviews are also considered, including consent, privacy,
* Corresponding author: Amanda Bolderston, MRT, FCAMRT, MSc,
British Columbia Cancer Agency, Fraser Valley Centre, 13750 96th Avenue,
Surrey, BC, Canada V3V 1Z2.
E-mail address: amanda.bolderston@bccancer.bc.ca (A. Bolderston).
1939-8654/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/j.jmir.2011.12.002
Journal de l’imagerie médicale
et des sciences de la radiation
www.elsevier.com/locate/jmir
and confidentiality. Finally, there is a discussion on the method of
analyzing qualitative interview data to prepare for its dissemination
in the form of an article or presentation.


RESUM E

Les entrevues de recherche constituent la pierre angulaire de la re-
cherche qualitative moderne. Les chercheurs d’exp
erience tout
comme les novices peuvent les utiliser pour recueillir des donn
ees.
Les entrevues individuelles consistent souvent en un continuum,
d’une forme structur
ee, semi-structur
ee ou non structur
ee. On utilise
l’entrevue semi-structur
ee ou non structur
ee pour la recherche qual-
itative, car elle permet de sonder et d’approfondir les questions
soulev
ees. Les interview
es peuvent exprimer leur point de vue en
priv
e, sans cadre impos
e par le chercheur. Les entrevues exigent par-
fois beaucoup de temps et requierent des habilet
es de communica-
tion pour
etablir une relation avec l’interview
e dans le but de
favoriser son expression. Les entrevues de groupe, ou groupes

echantillons, se composent habituellement de cinq a dix participants
qui
echangent sur un sujet donn
e. Les entrevues de groupe fournis-
sent parfois moins de donn
ees que les entrevues individuelles. En
outre, l’animation d’un groupe de discussion exige des comp
etences
particulieres et la capacit
e de s’assurer que tous les participants con-
tribuent a l’information a parts
egales. On peut
egalement utiliser les
entrevues a distance, c’est-a-dire les entrevues t
el
ephoniques ou di-
verses m
ethodes informatiques, dont Skype. Les entrevues a distance
sont parfois une m
ethode facile et peu co^ uteuse de s’adresser aux gens
dispers
es. Les donn
ees d’entrevue sont habituellement enregistr
ees
sur bande audio et retranscrites. La vid
eo et les notes servent a saisir
la communication non verbale et on ajoute les r
esultats aux notes
transcrites. L’analyse consiste parfois a cat
egoriser les donn
ees en
themes (ce qu’on appelle parfois le codage). Cette
etape peut se faire
de diff
erentes façons, mais les r
esultats sont une « carte routiere » des
conclusions qui ressortent de la recherche.
Introduction
This directed reading will provide medical radiation technol-
ogists (MRTs) with the knowledge needed to conduct a suc-
cessful research interview. This would be useful for
undergraduate or graduate students or any MRT who wishes
to take the first steps in the field of qualitative research. Inter-
views are a common method used to elicit qualitative data and
provide insight into people’s behavior and the meaning they
ascribe to that behavior. In health care, interviews can be
used for examining people’s experiences of their illness and
of the health services they receive or to look at health care
practitioners’ needs and attitudes to their work [1]. There
are several types of interviews, including newer approaches
such as focus groups and web-based interviewing. These will
be described, as will the fundamental steps involved in plan-
ning, conducting, and analyzing single or multiple interviews.
The choice of approach depends on the question to be
answered and the purpose of the research. If the researcher is in-
terested in what it is like for the participants to experience a cer-
tain phenomena, and what the experience means to them,
qualitative research is frequently the best available method
[7]. Qualitative research can often be exploratory and inductive
in nature, and is ideal when there is little known about a partic-
ular subject or issue. It can thus be used to build the foundation
for further focused and deductive quantitative research [5].
Qualitative Research Approaches

Background There are many traditions and methodologies that can be

Many medical radiation science (MRS) practitioners are
involved in research to some degree. MRS research is impor-
tant in the promotion of evidence-based practice and can lead
to improvements in patient care and direct clinical practice
[2]. Such research often adopts positivist approaches using
methods such as daily audit, survey research, or randomized
clinical trials [3]. Positivism assumes there is a single, unbi-
ased way to measure and view reality and was the dominant
research paradigm during the early 20th century [4]. The
uses of experimental and correlational studies (such as a clini-
cal trial to evaluate a new radiation therapy technique) are
examples of positivistic quantitative research methods that
test a theory, hypothesis, or assumption [5]. An alternative
approach is post-positivism that assumes human nature is
complex and multidimensional and seeks to ‘‘understand peo-
ple and the social and cultural contexts within which they
live’’ [6]. Researchers working within a post-positivist para-
digm may use qualitative research to explore the meaning of
human experience, recognizing that there is rarely a single
cause and effect relationship behind human behavior [5].
An example of a qualitative research project might be an
examination of the experiences of parents bringing their
children for diagnostic imaging procedures.
Table 1
Brief overview of three qualitative traditions [7, 9, 21, 43]
Tradition Overview
Grounded Based on the process of symbolic interactionism To study process issues in health care.
theory and originally developed by Glaser and
Strauss in the 1960s. Grounded theory
studies the process of human interaction and
generates theories to explain human behavior.
Phenomenology Originating from the field of philosophy,
phenomenology attempts to examine
(and understand) the lived experience
of individuals. The end result is to create
a picture of the issue or phenomenon
for people other than the participants.
Ethnography Emerged from the field of anthropology
to explore, describe, and interpret the
culture of a group, including their
behavior and knowledge.
Ethnography can be etic (from an
outsider’s view) or emic (looking
at the insider’s perspective).
classed as qualitative research [7]. Three main approaches are
grounded theory, phenomenology, and ethnography [8]. A
detailed discussion of these is beyond the scope of this article;
however, they are summarized briefly in Table 1.
Most qualitative research projects involve the collection of
participants’ views, which are transcribed and analyzed to
reveal a story or conceptual framework that represents the
meaning of the experience under investigation [5]. The
researcher is directly involved in gathering the data, and their
background and assumptions will inform and shape the
process. As such, qualitative research usually includes a consid-
eration of reflectivity, as the researcher deliberates the ways that
their involvement changes and acts on the data that they
acquire. This may be written as a subsection of the final article.
Uses of Qualitative Research
Adams and Smith [3] have proposed a framework for the
use of qualitative research in radiography. They suggest several
broad areas where the approach may be useful.
1. Intra-professional issues: There are many subgroups
within the profession, such as educators, managers,
clinicians, rural practitioners, and users of different tech-
nology and broader disciplines. Qualitative approaches
Applications Interview considerations
Unstructured interviews with approximately
For example, an examination of the 30 to 50 people. Enough that the
process of quality management in researcher is able to saturate categories
imaging departments [40]. and detail a theory.
To investigate the experiences of Long semistructured reflective interviews
patients (or health care professionals) with up to 10 people.
undergoing imaging procedures
or treatment.
For example, how radiation therapists
view caring [41].
Providing deep descriptions of health care Primary method of gathering data is
professionals, patients, students, etc. as observations supported by 30 to 50
cultural groups to facilitate understanding. interviews during an extended time
For example, the needs of learning disabled in the field (eg, 6 months to a year).
patients undergoing a diagnostic imaging
procedure [42].

A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76 67

 are ideal to look at the perceptions and experiences of
these groups as decisions are made regarding future
practice priorities, budgeting, strategic planning, educa-
tional curriculum development, and many other areas.
2. Inter-professional issues: In the era of interprofessional
collaboration, qualitative research can explore topics of
teamwork and territoriality between MRS practitioners
and other allied health professionals including nursing
and medical colleagues.
3. Patient care: Qualitative research is ideal to examine
the patient’s experience of their illness, diagnostic proce-
dures, and treatment as well as looking at the complex-
ities of the provider–patient relationship.
Introduction to the Interview
The participants’ thoughts, ideas, and perceptions are the
primary data of qualitative research and can be gathered
in various ways. Methods include participant observation,
document or text review, interviews, and reflections from par-
ticipants (such as diaries). One tool that is often accessible to
the MRS practitioner is the interview. Interviews are ways of
listening to and gaining an understanding of people’s stories.
Stories have been the way people have made meaning of their
experiences throughout recorded history and they provide
a context for their behavior [8]. Interviews are used primarily
in phenomenology, in which the researcher is interested in the
individual participant’s lived experience [9] rather than
a group process (as in grounded theory) or examination of
the culture of a particular group (as in ethnography).
Traditionally, qualitative interviews comprise a face-to-face in-
terview–interviewee dyad (or pairing). However, in the past few
years, data have been gathered in increasingly diverse ways such
as focus groups, using the telephone, e-mail, and internet [7].
Advantages of the interview include that the interviewees can
express their viewpoint, in private, without a framework imposed
by the researcher. Depending on the type of interview, the re-
searcher can adapt the line of questioning to explore emerging
topicsdan approach that is not usually possible in survey re-
search, for example. However, the process requires a level of in-
terpersonal skill to develop a rapport with the participant to
encourage conversation. Because ‘‘an interview is more than
just an interesting conversation’’ [10, p. 161], the process requires
careful preplanning and, as such, can be very time consuming.
Types of Interview
There are several kinds of interview.
1. Face-to-face interviews
These are carried out one to one with an interviewer and
interviewee. Individual interviews are often described as a contin-
uum, from structured to semistructured to unstructured [11].
For qualitative research, the semistructured or unstructured
interview is used, which allows probing and clarification of issues
that are raised. With a semistructured interview format, the
agenda is relatively set, but the interviewer is free to follow the
68 A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
respondent’s train of thought and to explore tangential areas
that may arise [10]. The interviewer may rephrase the questions
and how they are asked depending on the individual participants.
2. Group interviews
Often called focus groups, this method allows a number of
participants to be interviewed at once. Group interviews
usually comprise five to 10 participants who have a facilitated
discussion on a given topic. The focus is on gathering narra-
tives, rather than being a discussion, problem-solving session,
or decision-making group [12]. Clarke [13] suggests focus
groups work well because ‘‘group members influence each
other with their comments, and participants may form opin-
ions after considering the views of others.tapping into this
interpersonal dialogue can help identify common experience
and shared concerns’’ (p. 395).
3. Telephone interviews
The telephone interview is useful when collecting data from
geographically remote participants [14]. In addition, because
there is no travel involved, they can be both cost- and time-
effective compared to in-person interviews. Phone interviews
are increasingly used in opinion and social policy research, but
generally with quantitative surveys as opposed to more open-
ended interviews [15]. However, their use in qualitative research
is increasing as evidence mounts to demonstrate that telephone
interviews can be as productive as more traditional methods [16].
4. E-mail or internet interview
Another form of remote interviewing, the online interview
taps into the potential of the computer as a methodological
tool for research. Semistructured online interviews and virtual
focus groups can be conducted with e-mail, instant messaging
(IM), videoconferencing, chat rooms, discussion groups,
listservs, and more [17].
The Interview Process
1. Selecting participants
Who is interviewed depends on the intention of the research.
In qualitative investigation, sampling is usually purposeful in
nature. Purposeful sampling involves the researcher selecting
potential participants who represent the group to be studied
with the aim of talking to a reasonable cross-section of people.
This may be augmented by ‘‘snowball sampling’’ in which the
participants identify other possible candidates who fit the study
criteria [18]. For a typical phenomenological study, the total
number may be around 10 participants. This differs from
theory-testing quantitative research in which random or proba-
bility sampling is often used. For quantitative studies, the sample
size is determined by the optimum number needed to make valid
inferences about the total population to generalize the results
[19]. The total number thus may be extremely large (as in a mul-
ticenter randomized controlled trial). For qualitative research, in
which generalizability is not the aim, participants are selected that
may have insight and understanding about the research topic.
In general, participant numbers are less than those in quantitative
research. Even very large qualitative studies do not usually in-
volve more than 50 or 60 interviews [20].
An initial contact (in person, by phone, or by e-mail) serves
to discover if the participant is willing to be interviewed, would
be available at suitable times, and has the necessary experience
to be involved in the study. The interview date, time, and topic
can be arranged beforehand with a letter or e-mail of introduc-
tion that can contain the consent form and research preamble.
Bell [10] reminds us that ‘‘you’re not in charge: the respondents
are and you need them more than they need you’’ (p. 168).
Thus the researcher needs to be clear how long the interview
will take, and provide contact information in case the
interviewee wants to withdraw or change the time. If at all
possible, the interview should be conducted in a location
convenient (and comfortable) for the participant.
There is an inherent power dynamic between the inter-
viewer and the interviewee that needs to be managed carefully.
An existing hierarchical relationship (for example, an MRT(T)
interviewing a patient they have known over a lengthy course
of treatment) can make an unbiased and honest interview
difficult, so choosing another interviewer may be the best
solution. In each case, however, the interviewer should make
every effort to remain nonjudgmental.
2. Preparing the protocol
An interview protocol outlines the purpose of the study
and the steps to be followed and may be sometimes requested
by the research ethics board (REB) when applying for a review.
Writing a detailed protocol ahead of time will allow the
researcher to thoroughly think through the project, the
main interview questions and possible follow-up questions
to tease out the information required.
A protocol often includes:
 A description of the primary and secondary research
questions
 The personnel involved in the study
 The process to be followed by the interviewer
 Cues for a preamble discussing confidentiality issues and
consent with the participant. This would note that the
participant can withdraw their consent at any time
without prejudice or bias from the interviewer
 The questions to be asked (usually four to five primary
questions)
 Follow-up probes to help the participants expand on their
answers (see the following section)
 A final thank you statement [7].
More detailed protocols can also include a literature review
to set the research question into context and provide evidence
of the need for the study. A REB may also require a summary
of how the data will be analyzed.
3. The role of the interviewer
Although much emphasis is placed in writing appropriate
questions, the main skill the interviewer needs is to be a good
A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
listener [8]. When looking at the final transcript, for example,
the ideal example would be mostly unbroken blocks of text
indicating the participant had spoken most of the time
[21]. There are several pitfalls for interviewers during an inter-
view, which include:
 Correcting/educating the participant: MRTs play an
important role in patient education. However, during
an interview we are not there to teach the participant
or point out errors in their narrative. If there are major
misunderstandings that the MRT feels may be detrimen-
tal to the participant’s health, these can be gently cor-
rected after the interview is over.
 Not paying attention: a good interviewer can pick up
a conversation after the participant has become side-
tracked because they are listening attentively and follow
the participant’s train of thought. If asked ‘‘now, where
was I?’’ the interviewer should be able to come back
with the salient points and help the participant get back
on track.
 Turning the interview into a counseling session: MRTs
are often trained in ‘‘reflective conversation’’ or
‘‘empathic listening’’ and use tools such as summarizing
comments made by the patient, or reflecting back how
the patients may be feeling (for example, saying ‘‘that
sounds like it upset you’’ when a patient exhibits a strong
emotion). Although this is useful for practice to reassure
patients that they have been heard and understood, it
is not appropriate for interviewing as it can stop a free-
flowing narrative in its tracks [21].
 Being afraid of silence: often people need time to marshal
their thoughts, they may even be reflecting on the topic at
hand for the first time. The researcher should allow some
time for the participant to think and answer the question
before jumping in with the next one. A good rule of
thumb is to wait 7 seconds before saying anything else
[22]. Used with effective follow-up questions when neces-
sary, such a pause can prompt additional information
from most participants.
 Demonstrating bias: although researchers should feel close
to their topic and feel excited and engaged, they also need
to be unbiased and open to the process of listening and
understanding their participants’ viewpoints. Personal
biases can sometimes affect both the direction of the
interview and the participant’s responses [7]. Positive or
negative responses to comments made by the participant
can convey approval or disapproval and will influence the
data gathered. Short neutral verbal responses (such as
‘‘that’s interesting’’) can be used, but comments such as
‘‘good,’’ ‘‘excellent,’’ or ‘‘that’s correct’’ should be avoided.
This also applies to non verbal communication (such as
nodding or frowning) and body language.
4. Interview questions
It is hard to overstate the importance of designing good
questions and it is well worth taking the time to get them
69
right. Interview questions should be clear, fairly short, and
conversational in tone. Try to use words that the participants
would use when discussing the issue as opposed to technical
language or jargon. Open-ended questions are those that
won’t elicit a ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ answer, and are used to allow
people to tell their story in their own words.
The questions will be developed over a period and should
be informed by the preliminary literature review that may re-
veal similar previous studies and questions used. A group of
researchers will also improve face validity of the questions as
there will be a number of (hopefully) expert viewpoints. It
is also helpful to request the opinion of other health care pro-
fessionals and key stakeholders where appropriate. For exam-
ple, radiologist or radiation oncology colleagues will often
provide valuable feedback about the form and appropriateness
of draft questions. Useful things to ask about the questions
include:
 Will these questions get us the information that we need?
 Are they easy to understand? Are any of them confusing?
 Do they flow well from one topic to another?
 Does the language we have used reflect that of the group
to be studied?
 Have we missed anything? [22]
A pilot test should always be conducted with a small num-
ber of people before the study. This will allow modification of
any badly worded or confusing questions and improve the
validity of the process [8].
There are generally three types of questions that are asked
in an interview [22].
1. Main interview questions: These focus on the primary
objectives of the study and there are usually four or
five of them. After the preamble, the interview questions
will be asked directly, before doing anything else to
encourage a response.
2. Planned follow-up questions or probes: These are the
questions that make an interview question more specific
and help direct the participant to the central issues of
the study.
3. Spontaneous follow-up questions: These are the ques-
tions that the interviewer will ask after listening to the
first responses to a question to help encourage the par-
ticipant to say more. Frequent and thoughtful spontane-
ous follow-up questions add richness and validity to the
data because they help clarify the meaning of the issue
or question for the participant (Figure 1).
A useful final question could be ‘‘is there anything else you
would like me to know?’’ In some cases, this question can be
the starting point for the real interview as the answers can
be very revealing [21]. For e-mail or phone interviews, the
questions can often be sent ahead of time. In this case, there
may be the likelihood of misunderstanding without face-to-
face contact so the questions need to be clear and self-
explanatory [17].
70 A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
• Please say more about that.
• Can you give me more details?
• What is it about ...?
• Tell me more about ...
• What is your experience with ...?
• Describe ...
• Imagine ...
• What caused you to ...?
• What features of (the topic) do you particularly like/dislike ...?
• How…When….Where….How often do you…?
In general, try to avoid “why” questions because they can sometimes
make people defensive.
Figure 1. Examples of spontaneous follow up questions [19].
5. Timing
How long the interview lasts can depend on a number of
factors, including the type of interview used. A phone inter-
view, for example, can be conducted fairly quickly because
there may be less rapport building or group process to
manage. A focus group, on the other hand, can feasibly be
up to 2 hours long. In judging how long to assign for an
interview, consider the following:
 How complex the questions are
 How many key questions you have
 The participant’s previous experience with interviews
 The size of the group
 The level of discussion you want
 The participant’s (and researcher’s) availability
For in-depth face-to-face phenomenological interviewing, it
is important to try to understand the participant’s life
experience and how it relates to the phenomenon being
studied. A single interview is often not sufficient. Multiple
interviews (with the same interviewer) can allow for increased
methodological rigor, as the researcher engages and connects
with the participant for a longer time allowing a deeper
relationship to develop. More than one interview will also pro-
vide opportunities for the interviewer to confirm, clarify, and
build on information given in previous interviews [23]. Seid-
man recommends a series of three interviews as optimal [8].
6. The preamble
It is usual to begin an interview with a brief introduction and
an explanation of the research study as part of the informed
consent process. The researcher should touch on the research
procedure and explain how the results will eventually be dis-
seminated and how the research may be used to influence prac-
tice (if known). It is important to let the participants know how
their comments will be used, especially if it is anticipated that
large sections of text will be incorporated into the published
work. The participants should be reminded of their right to
withdraw from the study/interview at any time, and told
what measures will be taken to protect their anonymity at all
stages in the process. For example, they will be identified in
the transcripts and final publication by a pseudonym and
identifying remarks will be changed (such as names or job titles)
and that data (including the original tapes) will be kept in a se-
cure location and destroyed after use. They should know that
they are free to make comments without judgment, and that
the researcher is interested in their honest opinion. This discus-
sion will serve to clarify that the participant knows what the
focus of the study is, and ensure they know their rights as
a research subject. Written consent should also be obtained
before the interview begins.
7. Managing the interview
Depending on the type of interview, the location should be
private, quiet, and allow for an uninterrupted experience [23].
Turn off electronic devices such as phones or televisions and
minimize other competing distractions as much as possible
[21]. Usually interviews are audiotaped or videotaped and
the subsequent transcripts supplemented with notes taken
during the experience. All recording equipment should be
checked beforehand and spare tapes and/or batteries should
be available if needed.
The participants are volunteering their own time; there-
fore, the researcher should ensure that the interview begins
and ends at the agreed time. Providing water, coffee, or tea
is a way to build rapport and allow for some small talk before
the interview begins. It is polite to send a note or e-mail
thanking the participant for their involvement. If agreed
beforehand, a copy of the final paper could be made available
as a courtesy.
Specialized Interviews
Apart from talking to research participants face-to-face,
there are several other ways to gather data using the interview
format. Group and remote interviews (using the internet or
phone) can often be convenient and economical in terms of
time and budget. However, the choice of interview also
depends on the study and its ‘‘topics, characteristics of the
sample you are interested in, its philosophical assumptions
and so on’’ [24, p. 102].
1. Group Interviews
Focus groups were first used in the 1930s in the social
sciences and psychology, and then increasingly in market re-
search. Today they are used in qualitative research to gain
an understanding about how people feel about a particular
issue. The interviewer is usually referred to as a facilitator or
moderator to reflect the increased importance of managing
group dynamics and processes.
There are usually six to eight participants in the group.
Because the interaction of the group will influence the quality
of data (the transcript of the group discussion), the group
should be relatively homogeneous. This means that ideally
people in the group have fairly similar backgrounds. As an
example, in a group where there is a power differential (per-
haps MRTs and physicians, or MRTs and patients) discussion
may be affected by one group’s reluctance to disclose or talk
about certain issues. Focus groups can be especially effective
A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
with culturally diverse populations because they can tap into
implicit shared and common group knowledge [1].
One of the strengths of this type of interview is the tendency
for humans to socialize and interact in groups. Members of the
focus group will influence each other by responding to the ideas
and themes raised in the group and conflicting opinions may be
illuminated [5]. This can sometimes add richer information
than conducting individual interviews with the same number
of participants. Kitzinger [1] also suggests that they can encour-
age participation from people who may not wish to be inter-
viewed on their own or who feel they have ‘nothing to say’
but may become engaged in the group discussion. In addition,
time is saved by interviewing people together (although
transcribing the audiotapes can be more difficult with a number
of different voices).
Group interviews may be less useful when dealing with
a sensitive issue. People may be reluctant to voice their
experiences in a group setting (unless they are very familiar
and comfortable with their fellow group members). Also there
may not be sufficient time to plumb the depths of the topic
with each individual participant. However, sometimes
discussion of taboo topics can be opened up and normalized
using a group interview because the more open members of
the group can voice issues that others may be reluctant to
bring up.
There are some concerns with the use of focus groups
within qualitative research because there is a possibility that
individual voices may be lost within the group [25]. However,
many authors suggest that, with careful facilitation, they can
be a valuable data-gathering tool [26] and also allow the
participants to co-create the research data [1]. Conducting
a focus group requires the ability to ensure all participants
are contributing equally and group facilitation requires
a particular skill set.
Logistically, the same issues with developing questions
and managing the environment apply. Other issues to be
considered include the following.
 The use of a co-facilitator: it is helpful to have an extra
person involved as well as the primary facilitator. The
co-facilitator can make notes to supplement the audio-
tape. Writing down who is talking (even using initials)
can help with the transcription later, and noting any non-
verbal communication can also be useful. Overseeing the
audio equipment is also a key role for the co-facilitator; for
example, making sure the microphones are placed appro-
priately and turning the tape over (if not using a digital
recorder). The co-facilitator can also ask questions toward
the end of the session, if he or she feels that something has
been missed. Finally, it is valuable to have an extra person
for post-session analysis and debriefing.
 Managing the group process: sometimes people are reluc-
tant to speak in a group, or speak too much! It is impor-
tant that all voices are heard, and there are a number of
tips to ensure all participants contribute to the discussion
(Figure 2). Setting some ground rules at the start of the
71

For dominant talkers:
• Withdraw eye contact
• Shift attention, "Thanks, Chris. Now I would like to hear how
the rest of you feel about…”
For shy people:
• Try for appropriate eye contact
• Ask that everyone (or a whole section of the table) respond to
a question
• Call the person by name for a response. Use this approach
sparingly and only when it seems appropriate.
For rambling types:
• Withdraw eye contact after the talk gets repetitive
• Turn slightly away from the speaker
• Do not take notes or reinforce the talk in any way
• At a pause, say, "Thank you. Now I want to get some other
people to jump in here." Repeat the question, if necessary, to
pull the focus back.
• (Rarely) Interrupt. "Excuse me, Susan. I'm sorry to have to
interrupt you, but I see other people would also like to answer
this question and I want to make sure they have time." Then
repeat the question.
Figure 2. Managing focus groups [19].
session can help; for example, to ask participants not to
interrupt when someone else is speaking, to respect all
opinions as valid and to keep discussions confidential
when the group is over.
2. Telephone Interviews
Remote interviews (such as phone, e-mail, or internet) allow
participants to be interviewed in a familiar environment, which
may allow them to be more comfortable expressing their
opinions [17]. Phone interviews have a number of advantages
compared to face-to-face interviews and have been found to
be an efficient and reliable form of collecting data [14, 15].
They can also be a convenient and cost-effective way of talking
to people who are geographically dispersed. Indeed, it has been
estimated that using the phone can reduce research costs by
50% to 75% [27].
De Vaus [28] recommends the use of phone interviews
because they are less subject to the issue of reactivity, because
interviewees express opinions that they deem socially accept-
able rather than their actual beliefs. In fact, some authors
have suggested that anonymous telephone interviews may en-
able participants to be more honest [17] or allow a richer dis-
cussion or discuss potentially embarrassing topics [16]. Phone
interviews also minimize the impact of the interviewer’s gen-
der, race, and classdall characteristics that have been shown
to alter the interviewee’s responses [14, 29]. This distancing
affect afforded by the phone has been dubbed ‘‘pseudanonym-
ity’’ and may also affect internet or e-mail interviewing [29].
There are some inherent challenges in using phone inter-
views. Conversations can sometimes be less smooth-flowing
than face-to-face interviews; one reason is that nonverbal cues
or prompts (such as nodding or smiling to encourage the
72 A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
participant) cannot be used over the phone [15]. There also
tends to be more of a ‘‘task focus’’ because of social
expectations of the nature of the medium itself. However,
this potential drawback may be diminishing as cell phones
become the norm and conversations are often now primarily
social and/or trivial in nature [24]. There is some discussion
in the literature that interviewing older people may be more
challenging because this demographic can still be quite task-
oriented when it comes to using the phone. In addition, hearing
loss is more common in older people, which can affect tele-
phone interaction. It is also acknowledged that these are some-
what sweeping generalizations, not hard and fast rules [24].
It has been claimed that relying solely on phone interviews
may ‘‘exclude and disenfranchise those without a telephone’’
[29, p. 317]. However, a Statistics Canada report [30] from
2008 reported that the proportion of households without
any phone service was only 0.9%, indicating that this now
seems to be a moot point.
Particular issues related to conducting a successful phone
interview include the following.
 There may be lower response rates for phone interviews
if the phone call was unsolicited and unexpected. With
established procedures for recruiting willing participants,
response rates are usually similar to (or higher than) other
forms of interview [14].
 As with a face-to-face interview, a private space with
minimal background noise and distraction is important,
especially if a speakerphone is used. If the interview is
to be taped, permission must be first sought from the par-
ticipant. If the researcher is taking notes, the participant
should be aware of this so that they are prepared for
possible pauses in the conversation [15].
 Because there is no visual contact with the participant, the
researcher should confirm that he or she is talking to the
right person before the interview begins.
 As a rule, phone interviews should be fairly short: after
30 minutes or so fatigue or inattention may impact the
quality of the data. Longer interviews may be better
suited to the face-to-face format [28].
 When conducting phone interviews, the interviewer
needs to have good verbal communication skills to estab-
lish rapport, encourage responses with strong probes, and
keep the interview on track. In particular, Wilson [29]
suggests that interviewers make use of publications
developed for nurses undertaking telephone work with
patients. To minimize the tendency to keep the conversa-
tion short and task focused, the interviewer should be
explicit about the expectations from the beginning. Also
checking that it is a good time to talk and letting the
participant know approximately how long the process
will take often encourages more interaction [14].
3. E-mail or Internet Interviews
The internet is an increasingly popular method of gather-
ing qualitative data, using tools such as semistructured online
interviews and virtual focus groups [17]. Advantages are
similar to that of phone interviews, namely the ability to reach
remote participants, potential reduction in reactive bias as
well as efficiencies in time and cost. The majority of these
interview methods are text-based, which make them different
from more traditional methods of interviewing [24]. Several
studies indicate that the quality of data gathered electronically
is comparable to responses gained from more traditional
methods [17]. One potential drawback of using a text-based
medium is that nonverbal nuances indicating emotion are
not captured (such as discomfort, anger, or amusement that
can be seen and noted during a face-to-face or group inter-
view). However, Kenny noted in her discussion of an online
focus group that keyboards can convey ‘‘strong opinion’’ to
some degree with the use of capitals and various punctuation
marks [31]. Text can also incorporate emoticons (such as
smiley faces) and internet shorthand such as LOL (laughing
out loud). A significant advantage of text is the reduction
of the need for transcription, because data can be saved or
downloaded directly from the interview [17].
The main distinction in this method is between synchro-
nous and asynchronous interviews, and both types allow
individual or group interviews.
1. Synchronous interviews: This method most closely
resembles a traditional research interview in that it takes
place in real time using online venues such as video-
conferencing (eg, Skype), IM, or internet chat rooms.
The most commonly discussed method is IM, which is
generally held to allow a less formal and more spontane-
ous method of interaction than e-mail interviews [32].
Ensuring that the participant is not multitasking during
the interview process (and not checking e-mail, Face-
book, and so on) can be a challenge but the preamble
should include a request to focus on the conversation
only while the interview takes place [24]. IM can also
be used for group interviews. Similar to a focus group,
the interaction of the participants can spark interesting
discussion and debate.
2. Asynchronous interviews: These interviews are usually
conducted by e-mail over an extended period, and
involve multiple e-mail exchanges between participant
and interviewer. They can also be conducted using
bulletin boards, discussion groups, web/internet forums,
mailing lists, or listservs. E-mail interviews are well
suited as participants who need extra time to reflect
and frame responses to questions or who are nonverbal.
For example, a study of traumatic brain injury survivors
with cognitive-linguistic impairments used e-mail inter-
viewing very successfully [33]. In addition, because of
the nature of the exchange, a relationship often develops
between researcher and participant that is seen by many
authors as a positive benefit to this method [34].
Obviously, for e-mail or internet interviewing, the use of
technology is restricted to those who own (and can use) the
necessary hardware and software. For example, despite the
A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
popularity of IM, its users are not representative of people
who use e-mail or the internet in general [32]. However,
the use of e-mail and IM is growing rapidly as people adopt
new technology such as smart phones and tablet PCs. There
may also be issues with both sound and video quality for
synchronous interviews [24], although this is improving as
hardware and bandwidth progress.
Ethical Issues
Informed consent and issues of privacy and confidentiality
are basic principles of ethical research conduct [35]. Some of
the ways these issues relate to the conduct of interviews are as
follows.
1. Informed consent
As in all research, the risks and benefits need to be explained
to the respondent so they are able to make an informed decision
to participate (or not). They should be aware of the research topic
and the sorts of questions they may be asked as well as how the
data will be stored and used. Potential harm is limited when in-
terviews are used to collect data; however, there is always the pos-
sibility of mental or psychological harm from sensitive questions.
In qualitative research, especially projects that may be lengthy,
consent can be verified in an ongoing fashion (‘‘process con-
sent’’). For example, in e-mail interviewing that takes place
over several months of exchanges, it would be prudent to ask
the participant as you go along whether they still understand
the research purpose and are still happy to be involved [24].
When using the internet or e-mail for research purposes,
issues of privacy and consent are equally important. In chat
rooms, forums, and other online venues, the lines between
what is public and private are sometimes blurred [35], but
researchers in this domain need to be sensitive to this ambiguity
and follow the usual stipulations for informed consent. It has
also been noted that establishing participants’ authentic identi-
ties can sometimes be problematic online [32]. The degree to
which this is important will depend on the study, and proof
of identity could be obtained in other ways if needed [24].
2. Privacy and confidentiality
However the data are acquired, all personal information
should be made as anonymous as possible (for example, using
a code number for each respondent). Potential participants
should be made aware of how data will be kept confidential
[23]. Increasingly, REB requires information regarding the
security, accessibility, and length of data storage.
In various forms of online interviewing, it is hard to promise
confidentiality and/or anonymity because the data may be
archived and accessible to service providers or systems
administrators or even search engines (such as IM data) [24]. Ad-
ditionally, participants should be made aware that even though
identifiers are removed, if they are quoted verbatim in a publica-
tion there is a possibility they can be identified in this way [35].
Occasionally during an interview participants may reveal
more information than they had intended or make a comment
73
such as ‘‘don’t put this in the report’’. A participant has the
right to retract any information he or she does not want
used. Not complying with the participant’s wishes may have
serious implications for the participant personally and result
in loss of trust for the researcher [21].
It should also be noted that researchers are obligated to
provide confidentiality only to the extent allowed by law
[21]. Suicide threats and crimes such as child abuse should
always be reported in the very rare event that they are revealed
during the interview.
Issues of Validity and Reliability
In qualitative research, Creswell [7] describes validity as
the researcher ensuring that their findings are accurate from
the perspective of the participant(s), the researcher and/or
the readers of the final account. A few ways to ensure accuracy
that can be used are as follows.
 Questions: ensure the questions are relevant to the
research question and enough time has been dedicated
to thinking about and preparing the questions before
the interviews occur.
 Timing: remember that timing is important both in
terms of allowing enough of it for the interview to unfold
and making sure the timing of the interview is appropri-
ate (eg, not too long after a particular event that the
participant may have trouble recollecting it).
 Triangulation: use different sources of data in conjunc-
tion with the interview such as a chart audit, survey, or
observation study.
 Member checking: share the themes with the participants
and allow them to comment on their accuracy.
 Use of rich description: ensure the write up of the
research contains a strong sense of the participants’ voices
and a detailed description of the situation (including any
nonverbal communication). This allows readers to gain
a realistic impression of the data.
 Bias (reflectivity): remember that researchers can share
their own bias or perspectives and how they feel this
may have shaped their interpretation of the data.
 Negative case analysis: consider that the researcher will
deliberately look for contrasting experiences/examples to
disprove emerging theories.
 External auditing: consider including an independent
review of the themes by research team members or a re-
view of themes by peer(s) not involved in the research
to provide a more objective assessment of the process
and results [7, 36–38].
Reliability indicates that the research approach is consistent
and well documented; for example, would another researcher
following the same approach come up with similar results
[38]? Procedures to ensure reliability can include the following.
 Before analysis: ensure that the transcripts do not contain
any obvious errors.
74 A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
 During analysis: make sure the themes (or codes), as they
emerge, are consistent across all data. This entails cross-
checking and making notes about what the definitions
of the themes are. If there is a team of researchers,
communicate regularly and share notes and discussions
about the analysis as it occurs [7].
Analyzing Interview Data
Data from interviews consist of the transcripts of the
proceedings, which can be augmented by field notes to cap-
ture nonverbal communication. Analysis can be an ongoing
process that is conducted concurrently with gathering the
data [7]. Transcription is an arduous and time-consuming
process; it can take on average 4 hours to type up 1 hour of
a taped interview [10]. However, it is an excellent way to
become very familiar with the data. Hiring a transcriptionist
can be costly, but does expedite the process considerably.
Analysis usually involves categorizing the data into themes
or categories (sometimes referred to as coding). This can be
done in a variety of ways according to the type of research
being conducted (eg, grounded theory). The basis of most
approaches, however, is fairly similar. The overall data are
examined as a whole, and the researcher attempts to become
very familiar with the ‘‘voices’’ of the participants. It is impor-
tant that this stage is not rushed, as important information
can be missed.
‘‘We have moments of illumination. Things ‘come together.’
The problem is that we could be wrong . we do this by dif-
ferentially weighting information, and by looking at part of
the data, not all of them’’ [39, p. 253–254].
Articles:
Britten N. Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995; 311: (6999):
251 – 253
Byrne M. Interviewing as a data collection method. AORN J. 2001; 74:(2):
233-235
Kitzinger J. Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. BMJ. 1995; 311
:(7000): 299 - 302
Books:
King N, Horrocks C. Interviews in Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage publications; 2010.
Patton M Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2001.
Seidman I. Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in
Education and the Social Sciences. New York, Teacher’s College Press;
2006.
Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks,
California. Sage. 1994
Online:
International Training and Education Centre for Health (2009). Technical
Implementation Guide. Qualitative Interviews and Organizing and Conducting
Focus Groups
Available at
http://www.go2itech.org/resources/technical-implementation-guides
United States Agency for International Development’s Center for
Development Information and Evaluation. (1996). Conducting Key Informant
Interviews. (Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS) Available at
http://www.usaid.gov/pubs/usaid_eval/pdf_docs/pnabs541.pdf
Figure 3. Selected resources.
 The researcher will group comparable concepts into sub-
categories and then group those subcategories into major cat-
egories [5]. In this way a road map of issues will emerge that
can be used to communicate the essence of research to others
[7]. Data sorting and analysis can be done by hand using
a proprietary word processing system to cut and paste the in-
terview text into relevant categories or organized using a com-
puter software program for qualitative data such as NVivo or
ATLAS.ti [36].
Conclusion
We use interviews because, fundamentally, we are inter-
ested in the stories people have to tell [8]. Qualitative inter-
viewing is a powerful way of investigating areas of practice
in the medical radiation sciences and can provide rich infor-
mation about the topic at hand.
A sense of curiosity about the subject, as well as ‘‘common
sense and normal good manners’’ [10, p. 167] are an excel-
lent start for a new interviewer. However, a well-conducted
interview also requires thoughtful preparation; the ability
to ‘‘listen more, talk less’’ [8, p. 78]; and the capacity to
interpret and present the participant’s story in a way that
readers can understand. It is hoped that this directed reading
provides an introduction to the process. Interested MRTs
are encouraged to pursue further reading (Figure 3), or
seek out training courses in interviewing and research skills
that are available at many universities, colleges, or research
organizations.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Kieng Tan and Angela Cashell (Radia-
tion Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Hospital) for their
invaluable comments during the editing stages of this article.
References
[1] Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: introducing focus groups.
BMJ 311, 299–302.
[2] Holden, L., Stanford, J., & Barker, R. (2009). Clinical research made
easyda guide for research in radiation therapy. J Med Imaging Radiat
Sci 40, 160–164.
[3] Adams, J., & Smith, T. (2003). Qualitative methods in radiography
research: a proposed framework. Radiography 9, 193–199.
[4] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, con-
tradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln
(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
[5] Greenfield, B. H., Greene, B., & Johanson, M. A. (2007). The use of
qualitative research techniques in orthopedic and sports physical ther-
apy: moving toward postpositivism. Phys Ther Sport 8, 44–54.
[6] Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative research in information systems.
Manage Inform Sys Q 21, 241–242.
[7] Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative,
and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
[8] Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing As Qualitative Research: A Guide for
Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Teacher’s
College Press.
A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76
[9] Ng, C. K. C., & White, P. (2005). Qualitative research design and
approaches in radiography. Radiography 11, 217–225.
[10] Bell, J. (2009). Doing Your Research Project: A Guide for First Time
Researchers in Education, Health and Social Science, (3rd ed.). Maiden-
head, UK: Open University Press.
[11] Nelson, P. A. (2009). Qualitative approaches in craniofacial research.
Cleft Palate J 46, 245–251.
[12] Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods,
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[13] Clarke, A. (1999). Focus group interviews in health-care research. Prof
Nurs 14, 395–397.
[14] Musselwhite, K., Cuff, L., McGregor, L., & King, K. (2007). The tele-
phone interview is an effective method of data collection in clinical nurs-
ing research: a discussion paper. Int J Nurs Stud 44, 1064–1070.
[15] Smith, E. M. (2005). Telephone interviewing in healthcare research:
a summary of the evidence. Nurs Res 15, 32–41.
[16] Sturges, J. E., & Harahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and
face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Res 4,
107–118.
[17] Meho, L. I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: a meth-
odological discussion. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 57, 1284–1295.
[18] Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family Prac-
tice 13, 522–525.
[19] Polgar, S., & Thomas, S. A. (2000). Introduction to research in the
health sciences, (4th ed.). Oxford, UK: Churchill Livingstone.
[20] Britten, N. (1995). Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ 311,
251–253.
[21] Morse, J. M., & Field, P. A. (1995). Qualitative research Methods for
Health Professionals, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
[22] Fancott C. Conducting Focus Groups. Sunnybrook Hospital Practice
Based Research Session. Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 2004.
[23] Byrne, M. (2001). Interviewing as a data collection method. AORN J
74, 233–235.
[24] King, N., & Horrocks, C. (2010). Interviews in Qualitative Research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[25] Bradbury-Jones, C., Sambrook, S., & Irvine, F. (2009). The phenome-
nological focus group: an oxymoron? J Adv Nurs 65, 663–671.
[26] McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strat-
egy. J Adv Nurs 48, 187–194.
[27] Marcus, A. C., & Crane, L. A. (1986). Telephone surveys in public
health research. Med Care 24, 97–112.
[28] De Vaus, D. A. (1991). Surveys in Social Research, (3rd ed.). London,
UK: University College London Press.
[29] Wilson, K., Roe, B., & Wright, L. (1998). Telephone or face-to-face
interviews? A decision made on the basis of a pilot study. Int J Nurs
Stud 35, 314–321.
[30] Statistics Canada. 2008 Residential Telephone Service Survey. http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/090615/dq090615c-eng.htm. Up-
dated July 15th, 2009. Accessed March 24, 2011.
[31] Kenny, A. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: an online focus group.
J Adv Nurs 49, 414–422.
[32] Stieger, S., & G€oritz, A. S. (2006). Using instant messaging for Internet-
based interviews. Cyberpsychol Behav 9, 552–559.
[33] Egan, J., Chenowith, L., & McAuliffe, D. (2006). Email-facilitated
qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: a new and
accessible method. Brain Inj 20, 1283–1294.
[34] Illingworth, N. (2001). The internet matters: exploring the use of the
internet as a research tool. Sociol Res Online. 6. http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/6/2/illingworth.html.
[35] Eysenbach, G., & Till, J. E. (2001). Ethical issues in qualitative research
on internet communities. BMJ 323, 1103–1105.
[36] Palmer, C., & Bolderston, A. (2006). A brief introduction to qualitative
research. Can J Med Radiat Technol 37, 16–19.
[37] Hutchinson, S., & Skodol Wilson, H. (1992). Validity threats in
scheduled semistructured research interviews. Nurs Res 41, 117–120.
75
[38] McDougall, P. (2000). In-depth interviewing: the key issues of reliabil-
ity and validity. Comm Practitioner 73, 722–724.
[39] Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis,
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[40] Henwood, S. (1996). Managing quality in diagnostic imaging depart-
ments. Radiography 2(2), 111–117.
[41] Bolderston, A., Lewis, D., & Chai, M. (2010). The concept of caring:
perceptions of radiation therapists. Radiography 16, 198–208.
[42] Browne, T. A. (1999). small-scale exploratory study of the needs of learning
disabled patients presenting for an X-ray examination. Radiography 5, 89–97.
[43] Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and Evaluation in Education and
Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

76 A. Bolderston/Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences 43 (2012) 66-76