In an informative blog online at Quirks.com, Market Researcher Maxwell Wang lays out the 4 basics of a good interview.
I don’t want to spoil it for you, Mr. Wang does a great job of explaining each step in detail. Here are the highlights from his tips:
Establish equality, not superiority
Diplomacy in differing opinions: Be confident, not arrogant. ie., Be thoughtful & inquisitive, and firm on following the agenda. Wang notes that non-verbal cues can be helpful here, though I can attest that his tip is equally applicable to audio or text only interviews.
Show Respect
Another helpful reminder is to offer a high level of respect for the intreviewee. Communicate it truthfully, abundantly, and reiterate how valuable their time and opinions are.
Substance over performance
We’ve all seen folks tank on this one and it’s cringe worthy. Pride in your excellent work and career is not the point. The client is all that matters. What does the client need. Understand the ultimate objective of the research, the client’s past experience and current beliefs, and aim accordingly.
Prepare to Improve
As your interviews begin to tally up, remember that it’s ok to regroup and discuss improvements to the discussion guide questions and flow. Concious iterations and acknowledgements where things could be done better are what make the results of a good study a great one. Learn as you go, adjust accordingly, and keep moving forward. Call it “agile”, call it “iterative learning” – we call it continual improvement of the process so we hit that bullseye objective.
Expect the Unexpected
My dad coached my softball team when I was a kid and he would always tell the infielders to crouch with bent knees, because “you never know which way the ball is going to come at you. You want to be able to pivot left or right.” The best players learn to react quickly to the ball’s impending trajectory. A good interview rolls the same. The keenest insights come from what you didn’t know you didn’t know. Stay alert out there!
Oh Crap, The Incentives
And while we’re on the topic of getting to the heart of the matter, I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk about incentives: what participants are paid to share their time and opinions. There are different schools of thought on this one, with some believing incentives bias results. Personally, I believe participants should be fairly compensated. Tom Rich wrote a insightful article about how incentives drive outcomes. Good stuff.
What strategies do you apply in your research to ensure truthful responses?