The Unstructured Interactive Interview: Issues of Reciprocity and Risks when Dealing with Sensitive Topics

TLDR

Unstructured interview research is often evaluated by IRBs using biomedical criteria, yet its participant‑controlled nature creates a distinct risk profile. The article investigates whether unstructured interviews produce benefit or harm. Preventing distress relies on skilled interviewing and adherence to an ethical code. Qualitative interviews may cause emotional distress, but it is no greater than everyday life, does not require counseling, and when conducted ethically, offers benefits and poses no greater risk than ordinary experience, making expedited reviews adequate.

Abstract

Qualitative research using unstructured interviews is frequently reviewed by institutional review boards using criteria developed for biomedical research. Unlike biomedical studies, unstructured interactive interviews provide participants considerable control over the interview process, thereby creating a different risk profile. This article examines the interview process and literature for evidence of benefit and harm. Although there is evidence that qualitative interviews may cause some emotional distress, there is no indication that this distress is any greater than in everyday life or that it requires follow-up counseling, although the authors acknowledge distress is always a possibility. Essential to preventing participant distress is the researcher's interviewing skills and a code of ethics. When research is conducted with sensitivity and guided by ethics, it becomes a process with benefits to both participants and researchers. The authors conclude that qualitative research using unstructured interviews poses no greater risk than everyday life and expedited reviews are sufficient.