Sharing interview questions in advance: Methodological considerations in applied linguistics research

1 Introduction

Interviews are commonly used in applied linguistics research and beyond, offering several advantages (Braun and Clarke 2013; Mann 2016; Prior 2018). First and foremost, they facilitate an in-depth exploration of participants’ perspectives, experiences, ideologies, and beliefs, allowing for a rich and detailed understanding of the research topic. Secondly, interviews offer flexibility in questioning and probing, where the researcher can seek clarification or further elaboration on participants’ responses. Thirdly, interviews are conducted in a certain context where participants can provide detailed descriptions and narratives yielding a more holistic understanding and, subsequently, a more nuanced analysis. Lastly, interviews may empower participants, providing them with a platform to share their perspectives, gain deeper insights into their own beliefs, knowledge and lives, and, in some cases, the interview process may even be perceived as therapeutic (Morecroft et al. 2004).

However, whereas using interviews in applied linguistics research has become widespread, several researchers worry that they are not taken seriously as a complex tool (e. g., Mann 2011, 2016; Prior 2018; Richards 2009: Talmy 2010). As suggested by Richards (2009):

There is still work to be done to encourage yet deeper engagement with methodological issues, especially where interviews are concerned. We need to have more details of methodological and especially analytical matters in published papers, and it would be satisfying to see the demise of summaries [of interview data] amounting to no more than a couple of sentences or a short paragraph. (p. 168).

While observing that applied linguistics studies increasingly feature more detailed methodology sections, they still often lack specifics on interview conduct and reflections on potential power asymmetry between the interviewer and the interviewee (Brinkmann and Kvale 2005; Mann 2016; Phipps 2013; Rolland et al. 2019).

Further, research ethics underscore the importance of ensuring that the research process or outcomes should be of benefit to participants (De Costa et al. 2020; Shamoo and Resnik 2015), and yet reflections on potential advantages for the participants are rarely found. One way participants may benefit from being interviewed is by fostering a reflexive process that promotes raising participants’ awareness and making them conscious of their beliefs and practices. When participants have an opportunity to learn about themselves, they may grow from the experience, as also advocated for in language teacher development to support professional growth (Burton 2009; Ferrell 2022). Still, participants need time to reflect over and process their beliefs and to feel comfortable describing them in a supportive interview environment. In practice, this could mean rethinking interviews as one-off happenings. Two possible alternatives are long interviews or interviewing participants more than once to allow opportunities for reflection and more nuanced consideration of beliefs (Pessoa et al. 2019; Read 2018).

Furthermore, we argue in this article for allowing time for reflection prior to an interview, by sharing the interview questions with the interviewees in advance. Our reasoning for doing so is linked to two main objectives when conducting qualitative research. Firstly, sharing interview questions together with as many details as possible about the interview process in advance allows opportunities for participants to unpack their complex and often tacit beliefs. Participants may reflect while interacting in their environments prior to meeting with the researcher. Furthermore, more time may allow participants to formulate more nuanced understanding and deep responses. This is of high value to the outcome of the research, as more reflective responses can provide a better understanding of the research topic. Secondly, there are several ethical considerations linked to sharing research questions in advance, such as providing participants with true informed consent, increasing the benefits of taking part in research, and reducing any potential harm.

Surprisingly, however, these issues are rarely discussed in qualitative research, not in coursebooks or theoretical discussions on interviews, nor in empirical articles using interviews as research tools. Furthermore, we have found no studies within applied linguistics where participants have been asked systematically how they experienced having access to all research questions in advance of interviews. Addressing these limitations in this short paper, we first explore some methodological and ethical reasons and existing practices for sharing interview questions in advance. Thereafter, we describe and discuss how we shared interview questions with language teachers in a study about multilingual pedagogies (Tishakov and Haukås, under review) and the teachers’ reflections on doing so.

2 Methodological considerations: Increasing quality in interview studies

To the best of our knowledge, only Van der Maren (2010) has previously discussed in detail why interview questions together with all other information about the interview should be pre-disclosed to participants in as much detail as possible. He argues that the informant is the most important part of qualitative research, as the one who has the information the researcher needs. Furthermore, the interviewee decides how information is given to the researcher and the quality of the information: complete or fragmented, censored or transparent. Therefore, Van der Maren argues, the interviewee should be placed in the most favourable condition for a successful interview, to give the researchers the best possible insights. After all, the decision to conduct a research interview is usually because the interviewer wants to learn something from the interviewee (Rolland et al. 2019). Fundamental to increased quality is sharing interview questions in advance, Van der Maren contends, to allow participants time to think through their experiences, thoughts and beliefs, and to better organise one’s thoughts. In this way, participants may feel better prepared.

Van der Maren also discusses common objections to such practices, one of them being that the interviews will lack spontaneity. While he does not reject this possibility, he rhetorically asks if researchers prefer an improvisation show or reflected responses. A second common objection is that participants, if given enough time, will tend to construct their narratives of the past in more favourable ways. To this, Van Maren argues that all recollection of the past is constructed. However, giving participants enough time to recollect, will likely increase the truthfulness of their narratives more so than when having to talk about them on the spot. This argument is supported by the only empirical study we have found linked to this topic by Day and Carroll (2003). In the study about conducting job interviews, half of the participants were given interview questions in advance, and the other half received no interview questions in advance. The data analysis showed no differences in the validity of the answers between the two groups.

A final objection discussed by Van der Maren is that the interview process may become disorganised, and the interviewer will perceive a loss of control if the interviewees are given all questions in advance. Again, the author reminds the reader that it is the informant who owns the information and insights the researcher needs. The informant has structured their experiences and beliefs according to their own unique framework. Instead of imposing the researcher’s predetermined interview structure, it is crucial for the researcher to align with the informant’s mode of thinking and narration. This approach ensures a more meaningful understanding of the informant’s perspective and prevents the loss of important insights. In summarising Van der Maren’s (2010) insights from this significant article, it becomes evident that he views the research interview as inherently asymmetrical. With such understanding, the researcher recognizes and affirms the interviewees’ authoritative position, emphasising that they hold and should maintain a dominant role in the interaction.

As discussions about pre-disclosing interview questions are rare in the methodology literature, we explored the extent to which these considerations are addressed in empirical publications within applied linguistics. We narrowed our search by surveying the studies reported in a scoping review by Burner and Carlsen (2023). The authors systematically present and synthesise research on English teachers’ beliefs and practices about language learning and multilingualism from a ten-year period, from January 2011 through May 2021. Qualitative research approaches were prominent in the studies reviewed, with interviews being the most commonly used method. Of the 56 research articles included in the review, we identified 33 studies that used interviews as a method of data collection. In surveying these articles, we looked for descriptions of interviewing procedures, highlighting any details provided about how the method was used and justified. Out of the 33 studies, only two specified that interview questions had been shared with participants in advance. First, in a mixed methods study by Vaish (2012) on teachers’ beliefs about bilingualism and biliteracy in early literacy classes in Singapore, the author reports emailing the research questions to teacher participants in advance of interviews. However, no justification for this methodological choice is provided. Second, in a qualitative study on the identity formation of pre-service teachers in multilingual settings by Vallente (2020), the author describes sharing a list of possible research questions with participants in advance. He explains the reasoning for this choice was to give participants, “the opportunity to develop responses that made the discussions more productive and meaningful” (Vallente 2020: 4). Seemingly, Vallente’s reasoning is linked to strengthening the quality of the study, as suggested by Van der Maren (2010). While our review of Burner and Carlsen’s (2023) study does not encompass a wide range of topics in applied linguistics, there are indications that similar findings would be found across our field and beyond.

3 Ethical considerations: Enhancing participants’ rights and benefits in interview studies

Researchers in many contexts have access to established ethical guidelines and committee structures to steer the initial phases of the research process. Research ethics typically highlight the significance of ensuring participants’ informed consent, safeguarding their confidentiality, providing clear information about the research’s nature, and emphasising participants’ right to withdraw at any point. In Norway, for example, providing participants with such information is a prerequisite when submitting a research project for review by SIKT – Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. However, despite the value of such guidance, there is a danger that researchers focus too heavily on ethical committee requirements and feel they have done their job when participants have signed the informed consent form (Sterling and Gass 2017). The imperative of ongoing reflection on the ethical dimensions inherent in studying individuals’ lives may be overlooked or disregarded. As argued by Miller and Bell (2012), “Gaining ‘informed’ consent is problematic if it is not clear what the participant is consenting to and where ‘participation’ begins and ends.” (p. 61). Further, Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) warn that interviews are not from an ethical perspective inherently better than quantitative survey research. Participants can be exploited to the benefit of the researcher in various ways, for example if researchers have a hidden agenda and fake empathy and support to make the participant reveal information they did not intend to tell openly. Another potential danger of the interview, according to Brinkmann and Kvale (2005: 164) is the power asymmetry:

The interviewer has scientific competence and defines the interview situation. The interviewer initiates the interview, determines the interview topic, poses the questions and critically follows up on the answers, and also terminates the conversation. The research interview is not a dominance-free dialogue between equal partners; the interviewer’s research project and knowledge interest set the agenda and rule the conversation.

One way of re-adjusting the power balance between the interviewer and the interviewees could be to share the collected transcription data and/or the analysis with the interviewees and provide them with the opportunity to affirm or disaffirm the conclusions made by the researcher (Mann 2016). Although not without challenges and rarely undertaken, such approaches may empower the participants and make them feel respected as valuable partners in the research process. An additional method to safeguard the rights of interview participants and maximise the benefits derived from the research is to ensure they are well-informed about the study’s content through the pre-disclosure of all interview questions. Within the field of applied linguistics and elsewhere, we would argue that this approach not only promotes transparency but also empowers participants to make truer informed decisions about their involvement in the study. For instance, if participants encounter questions in the pre-disclosed interview guide that make them uncomfortable, declining the invitation to participate in the study likely becomes more manageable compared to refusing to answer questions in front of the interviewer during the session. Similarly, seeing that there are no “dangerous” questions may reduce participant anxiety and even prompt initially unwilling participants to take part. Moreover, by providing a clear overview of the research content in advance, researchers foster an atmosphere of trust and collaboration, establishing a more mutually beneficial research relationship. This way of developing rapport with participants has not been discussed in previous research, to the best of our knowledge (e. g., Kvale and Brinkmann 2005; Prior 2018).

Despite these ethical advantages, it appears that only a limited number of researchers in applied linguistics and other fields have contemplated the option of pre-disclosing interview questions to participants in their published studies. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies that have retrospectively inquired about participants’ experiences with receiving questions in advance. The next section introduces a study conducted among language teachers in the Norwegian context, wherein this specific practice was implemented.

4 Pre-disclosing interview questions to language teachers: Insights from a Norwegian study

5 Concluding remarks

Scholars within applied linguistics have addressed the need for heightened reflexivity in qualitative research (e. g., Consoli and Ganassin 2023; Mann 2011; Sterling and Gass 2017; Talmy 2010). As interviewing is an established and routinely used method in qualitative research, several important aspects have been discussed in recent research methodology literature, including discussions of interview dynamics, power relations and control, the constructed nature of responses, and the affordances of reported data (Brinkmann and Kvale 2005, 2015; Mann, 2016; Phipps 2013; Rolland et al. 2019; Van der Manen 2010).

This paper contributes with a reflection and analysis of the underexplored practice of pre-disclosing interview questions, considering its benefits and potential drawbacks. By exploring the theoretical discussion and reported practices in the field and delving into the experiences of English teachers in Norway, the research seeks to inform future methodological considerations in applied linguistics, encouraging a reflective and ethically sound approach to the use of interviews as a tool for inquiry.

We argue that all research participants should have favourable and ethical conditions in research interviews and benefit from participating in them. One consideration is pre-disclosing all interview questions to participants. By opting to share interview questions in advance, we propose that the quality of interview-based studies can be enhanced, and participants’ rights and benefits strengthened. Yet, we document that discussions of such practices are extremely rare, both within applied linguistics and beyond. Furthermore, we are not aware of any studies in our field asking participants how they perceived receiving questions in advance of the research interviews.

Our exploration of sharing questions in advance revealed that the participants of a study, language teachers in Norway, reported more benefits than drawbacks. Regarding the interview context, participants expressed increased confidence and preparedness to speak about the topics at the interviews when being given time to prepare, reflect, and put into words their beliefs. Furthermore, as suggested by Van der Maren (2010), the participants described how they could provide better insights and more well-formulated responses in reflecting over time and in consideration of their teaching practices. Regarding professional benefits, some participants found the reflexive process was beneficial to better understanding their previously unvoiced beliefs, and in reflecting on the underlying reasons for pedagogical practices. Ferrell (2022) describes how such reflexivity is considered an essential professional competence for language teachers.

Moreover, even though the teachers participating in our study did not address this aspect, we argue that by being more thoroughly informed about the research, informants may be better able to provide truer informed consent and derive greater benefit from the research compared with only being presented with a general information letter about the aims of a particular study and a description of participants’ rights. Among other concerns, the ethical issue of power asymmetry in interviews has been examined by scholars such as Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) and Van der Maren (2010), as previously discussed in this study. Notably, while Brinkmann and Kvale (2005) emphasise a pronounced and problematic asymmetry favouring the researcher in interview settings, Van der Maren (2010) demonstrates that this asymmetry can be mitigated or even reversed by providing research participants ample opportunity to prepare in advance. Future studies into pre-disclosing interviews should explore to what extent power relations in interviews can be better balanced and cause more potential advantages for participants and researchers.

As researchers, we gained a deep understanding of the complexity of teachers’ language beliefs in relation to their practices within their teaching environments by allowing the participants ample time to prepare in advance. Albeit based on limited empirical evidence, we suggest that this methodological approach facilitates a rich understanding of the interplay between language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Yet, this methodological decision needs to be addressed more in future research, both theoretically and empirically. Ultimately, following the call for increased researcher reflexivity in applied linguistics (Consoli and Ganassin 2023), we hope that our discussion can prompt researchers to reflect on their own interview practices and contribute to a broader discussion within our field.

Nevertheless, we also acknowledge potential disadvantages and risks associated with this methodological choice. Thus, further explorations of the potential for participant bias and pre-determined answers are needed. To explore such inquiries within applied linguistics and other fields, controlled studies, like the one conducted by Day and Carroll (2003), can be employed. In such studies, one group of participants receives questions in advance, while the other does not, enabling a thorough examination of how responses may be shaped by perceived expectations.