Posted by 
This blog post will focus on interview techniques for Communication for Development, specifically on how two interviews were conducted, and offering a personal reflection on the experience. The theme of the interviews centered on Youth Participation in Community Development, with one interview conducted online and the other in person.
For the first online interview, I contacted several NGOs focused on youth participation. Since I was already familiar with some organizations from my past involvement in youth initiatives, finding relevant contacts was straightforward. I reached out via email or contact forms, briefly introducing myself and explaining the purpose of my inquiry. I received a positive response from a youth coordinator at an NGO who was open to setting up a meeting. For the second, in-person interview, I connected through an acquaintance who provided me with the contact information for a youth volunteer who agreed to participate in the interview.
Interview Preparation
For an in-depth understanding of personal views on a specific subject, semi-structured qualitative interviews are the most appropriate method of data collection, as they allow for flexibility to follow up on intriguing points as the conversation progresses (Laurie & Jensen, 2017). Given these advantages, conducting a semi-structured interview with three open-ended questions seemed appropriate, as it would allow both interviewees to share their unique experiences in depth. When planning for the interview, I decided not to record and transcribe, but rather to take brief notes to stay focused on the conversation. Holstein and Gubrium (1995, p. 76) suggest that an active interview guide serves as a flexible framework for conversation rather than a rigid set of instructions.
These interview questions were:
- What do you think is the most important role young people play in community development?
- What are some obstacles you think might prevent young people from fully engaging in community initiatives?
- Looking to the future, what changes or support do you think are needed to enhance youth involvement in community development?
Interviews
Interviewee 1: Youth Coordinator at an NGO offering local training programs and cultural exchange initiatives for young people
This interview was conducted online via Zoom. I prepared an introductory outline before the interview and began with a warm-up question to learn more about the coordinator’s role and the organization’s background. This initial question helped establish rapport, creating a comfortable starting point and allowing the conversation to transition smoothly into the main interview questions. Given the virtual setting, I focused on verbal communication and active listening, as non-verbal cues were more difficult to fully grasp. As previously mentioned, I opted to take brief notes rather than recording the interview. At times, I was mindful that note-taking might make me appear disengaged or overly analytical. Although this aspect was somewhat challenging, using verbal affirmations helped sustain engagement throughout the interview, despite the limitations of the virtual environment.
Interviewee 2: A youth volunteer who participated in various youth projects
In the face-to-face setting, building rapport was considerably easier. The conversation flowed naturally, so there was less need for premeditated warm-up questions. The interaction seemed more casual than in the online interview, allowing for a relaxed and engaging dialogue. Similarly to the online interview, I opted for brief note-taking to stay on track and remember key points. At times, it was challenging to balance active listening with taking notes, so I prioritized focusing on the interaction and listening actively to maintain a participant-led dialogue. However, taking notes in person proved easier, as the interaction allowed for more non-verbal cues that added helpful context.
After each interview, I immediately expanded on my notes to capture additional details. Both interviewees were equally open to dialogue, though each format presented unique dynamics. The Zoom interview initially required more conscious effort to establish rapport, but once it was built, the conversation unfolded smoothly. The in-person interview, however, allowed for natural pauses that made note-taking less challenging and contributed to a more fluid interaction.
Insights and Relevance to Future Research
Reflecting on these interviews, I found it valuable to draw parallels with my previous experience using semi-structured interviews where I recorded and transcribed responses. Having had the experience of recording in the past and now conducting interviews by taking notes instead, I was able to observe how each method offers unique challenges and benefits. This experience gave me a clearer perspective on how different methods impact both the interviewee and the interaction itself. This aligns with Holstein and Gubrium’s (p. 4) observation that “meaning is not merely elicited by apt questioning nor simply transported through respondent replies; it is actively and communicatively assembled in the interview encounter.”
In my previous academic experience, recording interviews was my go-to approach. However, I noticed that introducing a recording device often changed the atmosphere of the interview. It sometimes made it more challenging to get someone to agree to participate in the first place, and it seemed to influence how people responded as if the formality of being recorded added an invisible pressure that made interviewees more self-conscious. In this set of interviews, without the recording, both interviewees appeared more relaxed and comfortable, which allowed for a more genuine, conversational interaction.
That said, note-taking came with its challenges. I found it more difficult than expected, as writing notes required my attention and sometimes made me question if it interfered with my listening skills. It takes practice and experience to balance both without disrupting the flow of the conversation.
From a research perspective, recording offers clear benefits. Listening back later allows for deeper reflection on what was said and can reveal details that might have been missed in the moment. Additionally, transcribing helps provide an accurate record of participants’ words, which reduces the risk of misinterpretation. In contrast, note-taking requires focusing on the main points, which can carry the risk of missing subtle nuances. I expanded on my notes right after each interview to try to capture additional details, but I was still aware of the limits of memory, especially for longer discussions.
Finally, these experiences highlighted the advantages and limitations of each approach. The pros of note-taking included fostering a more natural and relaxed interaction, especially when recording was avoided. However, the cons were less detailed recall, the risk of misinterpreting points, and the challenge of balancing note-taking with active listening. Ultimately, while recording can sometimes impact rapport and may be best avoided in highly sensitive contexts, it provides richer data that is highly beneficial to researchers.
Eni Buric