FMHU5003 Chap.3 Interview Questions and Reflexive Practice
Interview Questions and Reflexive Practice
This chapter treats interviewing as purposeful interaction rather than a spoken questionnaire. It shows how a semi-structured guide moves from warm-up and broad questions to focused exploration and closure, why leading, closed, double-barrelled or abstract wording weakens data, and how responsive probes, clarification, silence and ethical boundaries work.
The assessment focus is specific reflection that links a transcript moment to its effect and a feasible repair. Interview quality depends on listening while remembering the purpose, attending to connections and contradictions, adapting language, monitoring time and noticing non-verbal communication. Rapport is framed as a respectful professional relationship, not agreement or problem solving.
Clear beginnings, careful endings and post-interview field notes are included because the interaction begins before the first topic question and continues after the recorder stops.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Purposeful and interactive qualitative interviews
- 02
Semi-structured schedules with flexible flow
- 03
Warm-up, broad, focused and closing questions
- 04
Probing, clarification and situational detail
- 05
Rapport, researcher boundaries and distress
- 06
Transcript-based reflection on data consequences
Worked example · free
Repair a leading question
- +1Remove praise and the assumption that the call helped.
- +1Separate the combined issues into distinct questions.
- +1Invite a concrete account before asking a focused follow-up.
- +1Explain how the repair protects the participant's perspective.
Key terms
- Semi-structured interview
- A purposeful conversation guided by planned topics while retaining flexibility to follow relevant material.
- Responsive probe
- A follow-up shaped by the participant's preceding answer and used to invite depth or specificity.
- Rapport
- A respectful and professional relationship that supports conversation without requiring agreement or unrestricted disclosure.
Interview Questions and Reflexive Practice FAQ
Why is an interview schedule not a script?
The schedule protects purpose, flow and timing, but data are generated through interaction. A skilled interviewer follows relevant meanings, examples and contradictions before returning to planned topics. Reading each item regardless of the previous answer turns the encounter into a survey by interview and can signal that the participant's own account is secondary.
What is the difference between probing and clarifying?
A probe invites elaboration, reasons or a deeper account of an experience. Clarification checks what a term, detail or timing means. Both should be neutral and responsive. A useful follow-up often asks for a specific event rather than repeating an abstract why question. The choice should follow what is missing from the developing account.
What makes a reflective answer convincing?
A convincing reflection identifies an exact interaction, names the relevant interviewing skill, explains how the move affected the data and proposes a feasible alternative. It does not rely on claims such as good rapport or insufficient probing without transcript evidence and a stated consequence. Ethical restraint can also be a strength when it is explained specifically.
How should an interviewer respond to distress?
Slow down, acknowledge what is happening without imposing an emotion, check what the participant wants and follow the approved support and referral process. Do not pursue disclosure merely because it seems analytically interesting. Later reflection should explain how the ethical response changed the direction or amount of data and why that boundary was appropriate.
Exam move
Annotate an interview transcript with distinct symbols for probes, clarifications, transitions, interruptions, assumptions and ethically difficult moments. Choose examples that support different lessons rather than repeating one general weakness. For each example, write four sentences: what happened, which skill it shows, what it changed in the data and what you would do next time.
Rehearse rewriting poor questions while keeping the original research purpose visible. Treat boundaries and participant care as part of method quality. Build a short interview schedule around one research question and write the purpose of every item in the margin.
Check that warm-up questions create context, broad questions allow the participant to define relevance, focused questions seek depth and the closing invitation leaves room for what you missed. Record a mock interview only with proper consent, then listen for moments when you planned your next question instead of hearing the answer. Compare a directive probe, a neutral clarification and a period of silence.
Before submitting reflection, remove unsupported self-labels and replace them with transcript evidence, effect and repair. Run a second annotation pass that marks every place where the participant introduced an idea not anticipated by the guide. Decide whether your next turn opened that idea, redirected it or placed an assumption over it.
Practise a concise response to distress that pauses the research task, offers choice and avoids taking on a clinical role. For each assessment extract, name one realistic change to wording, timing or listening behaviour and describe the different kind of data that repair could make possible.
