Types of Interview

An interview as a research procedure can be classified according to several different criteria. Based on the content and the way they are carried out, interviews can be divided into:

• structured – the questions are pre-defined, asked in a pre-prepared order. It is similar to a questionnaire. It is usually analytical, and easy to implement. Such tightly controlled interviews ensure that the interviewee focuses on the target topic area, and that the interview covers a well-defined domain, which makes the answers comparable across different respondents. On the other hand, there is little room for variation or spontaneity in the responses because the interviewer is to record the responses according to a coding scheme. There is also very little flexibility in the way questions are asked because by adopting a standardized format, it is hoped that nothing will be left to chance. This interview type is appropriate when the researcher is aware of what he/she does not know, and can frame questions that will yield the needed answers (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 135).
• unstructured – it is more like a discussion, i.e. the answers are spontaneous, but it is more difficult to implement. It allows maximum flexibility to follow the interviewee in unpredictable directions, with only minimal interference from the research agenda. The intention is to create the atmosphere in which the interviewee may reveal more than he/she would in formal contexts, with the interviewer assuming the listening role. No detailed interview guide is prepared in advance, although the researcher usually thinks of a few (1–6) opening questions to elicit the interviewee’s story. During the interview, the researcher may ask an occasional question for clarification, and may give some reinforcement feedback to keep the interview moving, but interruptions are kept to a minimum. So, a positive rapport needs to be established with the interviewee. This kind of interview is most acceptable when a study focuses on the deeper meaning of a particular phenomenon, or when some personal historical account of how a particular phenomenon has developed is required (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 136).
• semi-structured – there is a set of pre-prepared open-ended questions and topics that need to be covered during the conversation, but the interviewer may follow the lines of enquiry in the conversation that stray from the guide if they find it appropriate, and elaborate on the issues raised in an exploratory manner. It is suitable when the researcher has a good enough overview of the phenomenon or domain in question, and is able to develop broad questions about the topic in advance, but does not want to use the ready-made response categories that would limit the depth and breadth of the respondent’s story. Usually the interviewer will ask the same questions to all the participants, but not necessarily in the same order or wording, and would supplement the main questions with the various probes (Dörnyei, 2007, p. 136).

Based on the participants, i.e. interviewees, we can distinguish between:

• direct interview (the conversation with the interviewees) and
• indirect interview (the conversation with the interviewee’s family, friends, etc.).

Depending on the number of interviewees, we can distinguish between:

• individual interview (the conversation with one person) and
• group interview (the conversation with several people) (Mužić, 1977, p. 250).