Why qualitative interviews?

Think positive! Argue positively!

“I do something with interviews because I’m not interested in statistics.” We often hear these or similar justifications. This is a pity, as this argument does not take up the strengths of a qualitative analysis.

At the same time, there is often a misconception that qualitative methods are the easier way. Unfortunately, this is sometimes the other way around. Preparing, arranging, conducting, typing up interviews … You can confidently factor in a multiple of the actual interview duration as working time. So it’s a lot of work.

But why go to all this trouble? Here we provide three positive killer arguments why qualitative methods are a good idea in the context of a scientific study. We have deliberately dispensed with the usual quali vs. quanti comparison here, and instead formulated exclusively positive selection criteria.

I can take multi-layered meanings and perspectives into account

People interact in very different ways, using a variety of strategies and complex patterns of meaning. However, these are usually not reflected and well-formulated, but can initially only be derived from actions, perspectives and ways of speaking. People who are questioned will presumably first of all take a step back, reflect, explain the background and look for explanations themselves. The narrative style of qualitative interviews in particular not only reveals how people evaluate certain topics, but also how they arrive at these evaluations, what contradictions they may contain and what topics may be linked to them.

I can explore new things

If there is not much prior knowledge about a topic and neither theories nor models or technical terms are available, then you first have to get an idea and explore. A key feature of the qualitative approach is openness to new ideas. This is helpful for developing hypotheses and theories and thus building up a (new) conceptual toolkit. In addition, hidden normativity is avoided by consciously allowing and encouraging answers outside one’s own prior expectations.

I get context and consistency

An open conversation (“Tell me …”) invites the other person to elaborate. In addition, it is common in an open conversation to link various elements together in a stringent narrative. This way you can access many details and background information. These in turn provide a very broad insight into the living environment and enable the statements to be categorized. Gaps or contradictions can be addressed. This enables a very precise reconstruction of individual points of view, including all contradictions and diffuseness.

Further good arguments can be found, for example, in: Kuckartz et al. “Qualitative Evaluation”, VS Verlag from page 66.