QUALITATIVE

10.1177/1077800403251757
Corbin, Morse /INQUIRY
DEALING/ WITH
June 2003
SENSITIVE TOPICS ARTICLE
The Unstructured Interactive Interview:
Issues of Reciprocity and Risks When
Dealing With Sensitive Topics

Juliet Corbin
Janice M. Morse
University of Alberta

Qualitative research using unstructured interviews is frequently reviewed by institu-

tional 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 indi-
cation 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 eth-
ics. When research is conducted with sensitivity and guided by ethics, it becomes a pro-
cess with benefits to both participants and researchers. The authors conclude that quali-
tative research using unstructured interviews poses no greater risk than everyday life
and expedited reviews are sufficient.

Keywords: qualitative research; interviewing; risk; ethics

Everyone agrees that among the highest duties of academics is to make

sure that the human beings they study—fellow citizens they probe,
query, prod, and palpate—are treated with dignity and respect.

—Shea (2000, p. 28)

This article grew out of a dialogue between the two authors regarding the
inconsistency with which institutional review boards (IRBs) review qualita-
tive research proposals. Evidently, some review boards assess the risks as

Authors’ Note: This work was supported by an Alberta Medical Heritage Foundation
Visiting Scientist Award to Dr. Corbin and an Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical
Research Senior Scholar Award and a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Senior
Scientist Award to Dr. Morse.
Qualitative Inquiry, Volume 9 Number 3, 2003 335-354
DOI: 10.1177/1077800403251757
© 2003 Sage Publications

335
336 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

minimal because they do expedited reviews, thereby expediting qualitative

inquiry. Other IRB committees conduct full reviews applying the same crite-
ria that they would to biomedical research. Their scrutiny extends beyond
issues of physical harm, confidentiality, and anonymity to include concerns
about the risks of psychological harm or “emotional distress.” In fact, some
IRBs are so concerned about the risks that they require researchers to develop
a priori strategies as a contingency should untoward effects occur, such as
identifying counselors for participant referral should the need arise.
IRBs are not alone in their apprehension. Many researchers have
expressed concern about the potential harm arising from unstructured inter-
viewing (Cowels, 1988; Davis, 1990; Larossa, Bennett, & Gelles, 1981; Lee &
Renzitti, 1990; May, 1989; Munhall, 1988; Ramos, 1989; Rew, Bechtel, & Sapp,
1993; Smith, 1992). Despite the fact that our combined experience with doing
qualitative interviews totals almost 50 years and during that time we’ve had
no untoward incidents, we share the concern of these authors, and the possi-
bility of causing possible harm remains as troubling to us as it does to others.
Yet our experience, which includes many years of conducting interviews on
sensitive topics, has been that participants react positively—and in fact, many
are grateful—for the interview experience. The purpose of this article is to
explore the risks and benefits of conducting unstructured interactive inter-
views on sensitive topics. The article begins with an examination of the inter-
view process to ascertain if there are any components inherent in the inter-
views themselves that may produce harm. We then explore the literature for
evidence of the benefits or risks associated with qualitative interviews on sen-
sitive topics. Finally, some suggestions are offered to IRB committee members
for reviewing research projects planning to use unstructured interactive
interviews to gather data on sensitive topics.

Potential Risks

What are the potential risks associated with unstructured interactive inter-
views when the topic of the research might be considered sensitive in nature?
Because participants are asked to tell their stories about some topic, they are
sharing personal, often intimate aspects of their lives. As such, there are cer-
tain risks associated with revealing matters of a personal nature. One risk is
that there might be a break in confidentiality/anonymity, with possible con-
sequences of a social, financial, legal, or political nature. However, a break in
confidentiality is always possible when persons tell their secrets, even to
friends and relatives, and is less likely to happen in the research interview. In
the research situation, the risk of breaking confidentiality can be minimized
through scrupulous attention to record handling and the concealing of identi-
fying information (Larossa et al., 1981). However, there can be no absolute
guarantee of confidentiality because records can be legally subpoenaed
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 337

(National Institute of Health, 1998). Only when there is no way of linking spe-
cific records with specific persons (not even by participant numbers or codes)
or no records of participation—such as signed consent forms (although ver-
bal informed consent is obtained)—can one protect against the risk of a break
in anonymity (Lipson, 1994). Even then, when quotations or cases are used in
writing or presentations, the risk that someone might be able to recognize the
persons represented in the quotes or cases still remains (Larossa et al., 1981).
Going beyond the risk of breaks in anonymity, there is the risk that inter-
views on certain topics might arouse powerful emotions. According to Lee
and Renzetti (1990), “it is possible for any topic, depending upon the context,
to be a sensitive one” (p. 512). The authors suggested, however, that some top-
ics have a higher probability of causing distress than others. These topics
include those that delve deeply into the personal life or experiences of per-
sons. Also included are topics that explore deviant or illegal activities, expose
the vested interests of powerful persons or persons engaged in coercive or
domineering behaviors, and are of a meaningful religious nature (Lee &
Renzetti, 1990).
Despite the fact that certain topics are considered sensitive and more likely
to cause distress, this doesn’t mean that the risks are of the same quality and
intensity as those associated with biomedical studies, hence requiring full
and rigorous reviews. The risks associated with unstructured interactive
interviews should not be compared to clinical trials that use experimental
drugs or treatments that may cause potentially disabling or even lethal side
effects. Although participants are informed of the risks before consenting to
the study, once persons enter a clinical trial they have little or no control over
the research process, often not knowing if they have been assigned to the
experimental or placebo group. Conversely, in qualitative research, espe-
cially those using unstructured interactive interviews, participants retain
considerable control over the process (Cassell, 1980). To make the assumption
that all interviews are potentially harmful takes away participant agency and
control over what is said, how it is said, or if anything is said at all about a
topic (Cassell, 1980; Ramos, 1989). As an interviewee recently told Corbin
before beginning the interview, “I don’t know if I have resolved all of the
issues. I think I have, but if it becomes too painful for me to talk about things, I
will stop the interview.” Furthermore, being overly concerned about poten-
tial risks also implies that the distress aroused by talking to a researcher is
greater than that experienced when talking about the same subject to a family
member or friend. It is not unusual for persons to be overcome by grief and
begin to cry when talking about sensitive topics to family members and
friends. The difference between family and researchers is that family mem-
bers and friends often don’t want to hear about such matters and/or are
embarrassed by the storyteller’s emotional response.1 Researchers are more
likely to be interested in hearing the story and to empathize.
338 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

Implied in IRBs’s criticism of distress associated with unstructured inter-

views is that it is better for participants not to talk about painful topics than to
talk about them and bring issues to a conscious level where they can be dealt
with. Much depends, of course, on the severity of the distress and how long it
lasts and if the distress is counterbalanced by the therapeutic effects of being
able to talk to a nonjudgmental person and perhaps even to gain some insight
and closure on unresolved issues. Naturally, there will always be persons
who have unresolved issues that haunt and torment them and persons who
are emotionally fragile. For these people, the distress aroused during an inter-
view may not be counterbalanced by the opportunity to talk. However, emo-
tionally fragile persons and those who don’t feel they can talk about a prob-
lem usually don’t volunteer to be interviewed. If asked to participate,
provided the request is made in such a manner that participants are allowed
to say no, those uncomfortable or distrustful of the interview process usually
refuse to participate. For example, Cowels (1988) interviewed persons one
month after the sudden violent death of a loved one. Her participants told her
that if she had asked them for interviews earlier they would have not con-
sented. They were either too overcome by grief at the time or busy handling
their affairs. However, after one month they were willing and ready to talk.

THE NATURE OF UNSTRUCTURED

INTERACTIVE INTERVIEWS
Unstructured interactive interviews are shared experiences in which
researchers and interviewees come together to create a context of conversa-
tional intimacy in which participants feel comfortable telling their story
(Ramos, 1989). The nature of unstructured interviews makes them contrary to
what quantitative research is normally considered to be—a process in which
distance and control are highly valued. At the start of an unstructured inter-
view, participants are not always aware of the course that an interview might
take or what secrets they might divulge. Larossa et al. (1981) stated that in the
comfortable atmosphere of the home and when there is trust, information
that a participant might not have otherwise chosen to reveal might be so. The
authors implied that the stance of “interviewer as a friend” rather than an
impersonal professional crosses conversational trust boundaries and may
entice the participant into providing information that they might later regret.
It is this very essence of trust and conversational intimacy that creates both
the potential threats associated with unstructured interactive interviews and
at the same time makes them potentially therapeutic as well as essential as
data collection tools. What transpires when two (or more) people come
together to talk about a topic of relevance to each party? We turn next to exam-
ining the nature of interviews. It is our contention that the interviewing pro-
cess and the control given to participants, especially in unstructured interac-
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 339

tive types, allows for management of many of the so-called risks associated
with doing interviews.
There are several types of interviews. There are unstructured interactive
interviews, semistructured interviews, and structured interviews, the main
difference between them being the degree to which participants have control
over the process and content of the interview (Cassell, 1980; Fontana & Frey,
1998; Morse, 2002). Our concern in this article is with the unstructured inter-
active interviews. In unstructured interactive interviews, sometimes referred
to as open-ended or narrative interviews, participants are given considerable
control over the course of the interview. Researchers establish what will be
studied or what Spradley (1979) called a “grand tour question.” Participants
are asked to tell their story as they see it, feel it, experience it. As such, partici-
pants determine where to begin the narrative, what topics to include or
exclude, the order in which topics are introduced, and the amount of detail.
Although researchers play an active role in the unstructured interview pro-
cess by means of focused listening, they are not the central actors. Rather, cen-
tral to the process are the interviewees who are telling their stories. Some
researchers do respond, probe, or ask for clarification during the course of the
unstructured interview (Fontana & Frey, 1998; Rubinstein, 2002). Other
researchers wait until participants have concluded their stories before asking
for clarification, believing that any intrusion into the interview process has
the potential to alter its course (Schutz, 1992). Of course, researchers by virtue
of being there do influence the process. Participants are telling their story for
an audience, even if at the time of the interview there is only an audience of
one—the interviewer. Participants know that eventually their story will be
told to others. It is also presumptuous to imply that researchers exert no con-
trol over the interview process. Their status as researchers gives them a cer-
tain degree of power over the situation. However, unless a researcher is domi-
neering or intrusive, the control is minimal. In fact, many researchers go to
great lengths to reduce status differences by sharing information about their
own lives and why they have an interest in the research (Thompson, 1995).
(See Table 1 for a comparison of degrees of control held by participants/
researchers for the different types of qualitative interviews.)
According to Kvale (1984), the very act of talking with another person that
shares a common interest, is genuinely interested in your viewpoint, and who
is not critical can be a richly rewarding experience. Unstructured interviews
are not interrogation sessions. No one is asking a series of questions to which
participants are expected to respond. Although unstructured interviews
share some characteristics with counseling, interviews are not counseling ses-
sions either (Hutchinson, Wilson, & Wilson, 1994). This latter point is very
important. The purpose of unstructured interactive interviews is to provide
guidance but to gather information about topics or phenomena that happen
to be of interest to researchers and at the same time are significant events or
experiences in persons’ lives. Although it is possible for an interviewee to feel
340

TABLE 1: Dimensions of Participant Control Over Interviews in Three Modes of Interviewing

Dimensions Unstructured Semistructured Quantitative/Closed-Ended

Power relations Agenda is set by the participant Researcher determines the struc- Researcher determines what infor-
through the stories/events they ture of the interview and agenda mation will be gathered. Partici-
choose to tell. Researcher may through the questions asked. The pant may respond or refuse to
enhance the data collection pro- participant controls the amount respond.
cess by active listening and ask- of information provided in
ing questions. responses.
P→r R→P R→?
Control over Participant has the control over Participant may withhold Researcher has most of the control.
interaction the pacing of the interview, important information because The participant may only choose
what will be disclosed (the the relevant question was not whether to respond (correctly or
amount of detail, scope of the asked, may answer in a perfunc- incorrectly) or to refuse to
interview, etc.), and the tory manner, or fully cooperate. respond (i.e., to comply, sabotage,
emotional intensity. or not to play the game).
P→? P→r R→p
Direction of P→r R=P R→p
interaction (Initially the researcher may (May be undermined by the
control the direction. This shifts participant by withholding
as the participant becomes more information)
comfortable with the interview
and commences narration.)

Note: Uppercase indicates dominance; arrow indicates direction. R = Researcher; P = Participant. This table was adapted from Cassell (1980).
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 341

that he or she has been coerced into being interviewed, consent forms make it
clear that persons are free to choose whether to participate. Furthermore, per-
sons may withdraw from a study at any time without penalty. The topic of the
investigation is explained clearly before persons agree to be interviewed, and
once the agreement is made, researchers and participants together negotiate
the time and place to meet. Some participants may have told their entire story
before to family, friends, or even strangers. Other participants may have only
told their story in bits as events unfold, never before given the opportunity to
tell the entire story in one sitting (Morse, 2002). Some prospective interview-
ees are nervous about partaking in an interview, especially if they have never
participated in one before. But then, the same holds true for interviewers, par-
ticularly inexperienced ones.
Regardless of how many times individuals have told their story or how
experienced a researcher might be, each time an interviewer and an inter-
viewee come together for the first time, it marks the beginning of a new rela-
tionship. The dynamic nature of qualitative interviews makes it impossible to
predict with certainty what will transpire. However, most interviews follow a
standard course. For purposes of this article, the interview process will be
explored in four phases: the preinterview phase, the tentative phase, the
phase of immersion, and the phase of emergence.
We take this opportunity to explicate the process of a “typical” unstruc-
tured interactive interview for the following reason. We want to demonstrate
to IRB committee members and other interested researchers that when
unstructured interviews are conducted with caring and sensitivity they pres-
ent opportunities for reciprocity as well as risks. We don’t mean to imply that
“psychological risks” are nonexistent. Rather, the risks are often contained
and mitigated by the benefits that participants receive by telling their stories.
The preinterview phase. Before an interview begins, the purpose of the inter-
view is explained, even if this means repeating the material presented when
the interviewer first established an appointment with the participant. The
consent form is reviewed thoroughly. It is important to determine if the par-
ticipant fully understands what being a research participant entails (Lipson,
1994). Once the researcher is confident that any concerns or questions about
confidentiality, anonymity, and so on are resolved, the participant is asked to
sign the consent form, and permission to tape record the session is sought and
obtained. Participants are reminded once more that they are free to withdraw
from the study at any time. This assurance is especially important if the inter-
view referral was obtained from an agency or organization where partici-
pants receive service.
During the preinterview phase, there is often much small talk, especially if
the interview is being conducted in a place where participants might not feel
as relaxed as they would be in their own home, such as an agency or at a uni-
versity. This is a time when the participant(s) and researcher assess each other
and begin to establish a degree of comfort and trust. This initial period is very
342 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

important and should never be hurried for it sets the tone for the forthcoming
interview. It is the beginning of a temporary but important human connection
that will intensify and grow over the course of the interview. It is also the
period in which the groundwork for reciprocity (Schoenberg, 2002) is estab-
lished: An interview is an exchange. The participants sometime share inti-
mate information, but the researcher gives something in return: a sense of
presence or of being with the participant in the story.
Reciprocity extends beyond being there with the participant. Participants,
in agreeing to participate in a study, usually do so because they want some-
thing in return even though they themselves might not be consciously aware
what this is. Sometimes they want validation that they are recovering or are a
good person despite what might have happened to them. Sometimes they
desire information, such as about an illness or possible services. Often they
need to unburden and there is no one else to whom they can turn to tell their
story. A frequent reason cited by persons for consenting or requesting to par-
ticipate in a study is the hope that telling their story will help others. Some
people just have a need to talk. Talking helps them to sort things out, make
sense out of events, or conquer fear or shame. Sometimes persons want to see
how a stranger reacts to their story before they tell it to someone closer to
them. Usually, there is no overt or spoken contract between participant and
researcher about what the exchange will be. However, a conscientious
researcher will try to discern what it is participants are seeking, then if possi-
ble provide that either during the interview or once it’s over. (See footnote 3
for a further discussion on this topic.)
The tentative phase. The preinterview phase gradually gives way to the
interview itself, though the movement between the two phases is often not
discernable. Participants don’t just start out telling intimate details of their
lives; they work up to the story as they begin to trust the investigator (Mishler,
1999). There may be some testing of interviewer response as participants
wonder what and how much can be told. Unstructured interactive interviews
provide the opportunity for participants to construct their stories, reliving
past experiences during the course of the narration. As they shape the story,
participants take into account their own emotional responses to what is being
revealed as well as the verbal and nonverbal responses of the interviewer and
adjust their storytelling accordingly. As trust builds, gradually more of the
story unfolds. As with any good novel, the narration begins with background
information about the persons’ lives and the events leading up to the event of
interest. Slowly, the layers of a participant’s life are peeled back, exposing the
self to varying degrees, thereby moving the narration into the next phase.
The immersion phase. Unstructured interviews don’t necessarily follow a
strictly linear pattern. They vary in quality and duration. Some participants
are more introspective, thoughtful, and tell their stories better than others,
choosing to reveal more of themselves by expressing their inner thoughts and
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 343

feelings. Other persons tend to limit their conversation to the facts—first this
happened, then this, then that. In a good interview, both participant and inter-
viewer gradually become immersed in the unfolding drama of the story. To
ease any tension or to gather thoughts, participants sometimes take side trips
to talk about topics unrelated to the research or stop talking for a few
moments to gather their thoughts or think something through. Participants
may move back and forth in time and between events and sometimes even
contradict themselves. These contradictions do not necessarily negate the
story. Rather, they are indications that by telling their stories, participants are
trying to make sense out of significant events in their lives, a clarity that might
have eluded them until they sat down to talk. At certain points in the narra-
tion, depending on the nature of the interview, the telling might become dis-
tressful to the participant, the story provoking feelings of deep loss and grief,
anger, or despair. An interviewee might cry or become too overwhelmed to
go on. Usually when this happens, a sensitive interviewer stops the narration
until the participant regains composure. Although researchers might not
have encountered the same loss or have undergone the exact experience,
many researchers have also experienced sorrow, loss, anger, and despair.
Therefore, during these intense and distressful moments, researchers often
connect with participants at a very deep level. They too are caught up in the
story and share feelings of loss, grief, and/or anger with participants. At the
same time, experienced qualitative researchers are able to step back and pro-
vide the empathy and support that participants might need to work through
troubling experiences. Much of this is done in silence, the researcher sitting,
being there for the participant.
Once a participant regains composure, he or she is usually given a choice
about whether to continue with the topic, change to another topic, or termi-
nate the interview, perhaps making arrangements for the participant to
return at some later date. A good interviewer never leaves the interview with
the participant in a distressed state but uses this period to take the participant
on to the fourth stage. As stated by Smith (1992), “to interview and then leave
someone in emotional distress without adequate support or safeguards is
morally wrong” (p. 102).
Phase of emergence. In the fourth and final phase, the interview shifts to a
less intense emotional level. The topics that are discussed might be just as rel-
evant to the story but are of a less emotional and sensitive nature. As in the
preinterview phase, the interviewee might ask personal questions of the
interviewer or talk about events in his or her past. For example, toward the
end of a recent intense interview conducted by Corbin, the interviewee took
the researcher out into the backyard to look at the garden and the new retainer
wall that had been built. After that, they shared tea and cookies and talked
about the holidays before finally concluding the session.2
The phase of emergence is the time that without fear of influencing the nar-
rative flow, the researcher can provide information, advice, or validation.3
344 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

This is not to say that after the tape recorder is turned off and the interviewer
is ready to go that the interview is necessarily finished. Sometimes, a partici-
pant takes this opportunity to reveal some extremely relevant information or
secret. In fact, this often leaves investigators scrambling to get out their pen
and paper or turn the tape recorder back on. Although one might interpret
this delayed action in many different ways, one might also consider this one
more piece of evidence that the interviewee is really in control of what infor-
mation, how much information, and when that information is delivered.4
It is important to remember that qualitative interviews also can be very
demanding of researchers. They become involved in the story and reach out
in empathy to participants. In a way, they become part of that story. As stated
by Kleinman and Copp (1993), “we assume that field researchers’ selves and
emotions are always implicated in the research” (p. 52). Because interviews
can be so intense for participant and researcher, it is important that both
achieve a level of comfort and readiness before they part (Booth & Booth,
1994).
These authors’ experiences with unstructured interactive interviews have
been positive, however we represent only a sample of two and a biased one at
that. The concern at this point is with other researchers’ experiences and what
they have written about the emotional distress and issues of reciprocity and
risks. We turn now to the literature regarding risks of benefits of interviews in
general.

Risk of Harm

Brzuzy, Ault, and Segal (1997) stated that some of their interviewees
reported a lack of concentration and anxiety in anticipation of being inter-
viewed. The authors also stated that some interviewees experienced emo-
tional distress while being interviewed and had nightmares after recounting
their experiences. However, the authors did not state for how long the night-
mares occurred or if any of the participants required counseling services.
Interestingly, two of the coauthors of the article were also informants in the
study, prompting them to sit down with the primary researcher to talk about
their experiences during the interview along with the risks. What the authors
sought to bring out in their article was the potential for revictimizing partici-
pants by having them recount their stories. The authors implored researchers
to be sensitive to participants’ emotional state and aware of the ethical consid-
erations when doing research on female victims of trauma. They also sug-
gested that researchers make contact with participants 1 to 2 days following
an interview to determine if there are any distressing effects still lingering.
During parts of the interview when his interviewees were confronting,
reliving, or remembering traumatic events in their lives, Wong (1998) noted
that the interviewees showed emotional frustration, behavioral outbursts of
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 345

pain, sadness, and grief. Yet despite this, he noted that most of the women
said that they enjoyed the interviews. Wong added that the sessions enabled
women to vent their anger and relive memories while laughing at their
mistakes.
While exploring perinatal loss, Kavanaugh and Ayres (1998) asked the
participants for their reaction to the interview after its completion. The
authors pointed out how difficult it is to evaluate participants’ reactions
merely by noting their verbal responses. Their experience with studying loss
has led them to suggest that a more accurate indication of degree of distress
can be obtained through a review of field notes for number of attempted con-
tacts, canceled appointments, and characteristics of the interview and setting.
The authors described how one interviewee cried during the interview but
stated afterward that being able to talk about the loss of her baby was helpful.
However, the same woman was 40 minutes late for a subsequent interview.
The woman also cried during the second interview but wanted to continue.
She stated that although a memory or conversation could prompt sadness,
sometimes there was no identifiable reason for her sorrow. The woman went
on to say, “sometimes it [answering painful questions] helps you to think and
get over it” (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998, p. 93).
Turnbull, McLeod, Callahan, and Kessler (1988) conducted a survey that
examined married couples’ responses to stressful life experiences and related
psychopathology. A general population sample of 1,755 respondents was
used. Data were collected through two interviews. In the first, a screening
instrument administered by lay interviewers was used to identify respon-
dents with psychiatric problems. Those participants with problems were
interviewed a second time by a mental health professional to gather diagnos-
tic information. As part of the first data-gathering process, interviewers were
asked to rate participants’ reactions to the interviews. Of the 1,755 partici-
pants, only 45 were rated as being distressed by the interviews. Overall, more
participants expressed enjoyment with having the opportunity to talk than
were distressed by it. Reasons given for distress were concern about the
spouses’ reaction to respondents’ participation, the length of the interview,
and certain questions on the questionnaire. The uncomfortable questions per-
tained to recent painful or embarrassing events in participants’ lives. The
researchers acknowledged that one of the problems with the interviewer rat-
ing is that they applied only to the time of the interview. The researchers did
not know how long the distress persisted. The only possible measure avail-
able to the researchers to measure long-term distress was participant willing-
ness to participate in a second interview. Of the 45 participants who were
rated as distressed in the first interview, 22 were eligible to participate in the
second. Of those, 12 refused to participate in a second interview, 9 consented,
and 1 moved away. However, even among the 12 who refused to participate
in a second interview, the reasons for refusal were mixed. Four reported not
having enough time, 4 were concerned about their spouses’ reaction, and
346 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

only 4 refused without explanation. The researchers concluded that the dis-
tress caused by the first interview was minor and short-lived. In the second
interviews, which were conducted by clinicians, the interviewers were told
that they could do whatever seemed appropriate to handle distress in partici-
pants should the need arise. Most clinicians reported that respondents
enjoyed the interviews and that they were never called on to use their clinical
skills.

Benefits

Hutchinson et al. (1994) listed seven possible benefits of qualitative inter-

views. They stated that interviews (a) serve as a catharsis, (b) provide self-
acknowledgement and validation, (c) contribute to a sense of purpose, (d)
increase self-awareness, (e) grant a sense of empowerment, (f) promote heal-
ing, and (g) give voice to the voiceless and disenfranchised. Honeycutt (1995)
described interviews as “informal, unorthodox, lay interventions.” He stated
that happily married couples view oral histories as a means of informing
other couples that despite the high number of divorces, happy marriages are
possible. On the other hand, unhappily married couples use interviews as an
emotional release and a reference point for understanding their relationship.
Ortiz (2001) reported that he was surprised to discover after initial interviews
with wives of professional athletes that the sessions took on a therapeutic
value. Participating in interviews gave the wives an opportunity to express
pent-up feelings and in the process, experience emotional ventilation and in
some cases self-transformation.
People tell their stories to be heard (Frank, 2000). Although illness may be
demoralizing, people use storytelling as a way of “re-moralizing”—when life
is hard, telling serves a recuperative role in that it enables persons to gain
some distance from what is threatening. Furthermore, Lipson (1994) stated
that though sometimes there is uncontrolled crying and struggling to regain
control during and after interviews, there appear to be no ill effects.

A CASE FOR SKILL AND ETHICS

In this review of the literature there is no documentation that interviews
have caused long-term harm or that participants required referral for follow-
up counseling. In fact, even though participants experienced some degree of
emotional distress during and immediately afterward, the anecdotal evi-
dence suggests that interviews are more beneficial than harmful. Yet, it
remains that no one can predict what will be said in the course of an unstruc-
tured interview, the feelings it will provoke, or any long-lasting effects. Much
depends on the ability of the interviewer to judge and respond to the emo-
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 347

tional state of the participant (Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998). Also important is
having a code of ethics to guide the entire research process from framing the
question, to choosing a population, to writing up and presenting the findings
(Munhall, 1988). Thus, we make a case for skill and ethics.

Interviewing Skill

Interviewing is a skill, one that’s not readily learned in the classroom,

although some disciplines, such as social work and psychological counseling
and nursing, provide interview training skills that may be transferred to
research interviewing. Interviewing skill seems to develop with experience.
A good interviewer must be able to establish rapport and trust (Schoenberg,
2002), gather information without controlling the flow of information, and
record it accurately (May, 1989). First interviews by novices are often awk-
ward, with the interviewer injecting comments and questions more often
than necessary, usually because of discomfort with pauses and silences in the
conversation. Fortunately, while reading transcripts of their interviews, most
novices are able to see the errors in their approach, and in subsequent inter-
views there is less input from the researcher. Sensitivity, on the other hand, is
more of a personality trait than a skill. It too is a necessary ingredient for inter-
viewing that aims to minimize the distress of participants. Sensitivity can’t be
learned from a textbook but must be fostered and developed through interac-
tion with others. Other qualities of a good interviewer include authenticity,
credibility, intuitiveness, receptivity, and reciprocity (Rew et al., 1993).
Several authors provide guidelines for minimizing the distress associated
with interviews. Interviews must be adapted to the needs of respondents,
including the need for pacing, taking breaks, postponing painful discussions,
and terminating interviews should they become too distressful (Kavanaugh
& Ayres, 1998; McSherry, 1995). In cases where the discussion becomes too
painful, it might be necessary to abandon a topic based on cues from the par-
ticipant. In painful interviews, it is important that participants be able to
choose the words with which to tell their stories. Participants want to get the
story right and sometimes ask for copies so that they might read what they
said. Even before beginning a study, researchers should clarify the ethical
principles that will guide the research and respect the interests of partici-
pants. Booth and Booth (1994) believed that rapport and trust are two-way
processes and that it is important to give as well as receive information. Also
relevant is setting aside one’s own values and standards for judging, over-
looking such things as how participants keep house. Most important is deliv-
ering what one promises and pacing the withdrawal from the research rela-
tionship in accordance with participants’ readiness.
Unstructured interactive interviews are exhausting for the researcher.
Booth and Booth (1994) reported feeling tired and exhausted from the strain
348 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

of sharing the anguish of participants, thus bringing out the importance of

researchers looking out for and caring for themselves as well as for
participants.

Using a Code of Ethics

Ethics are acquired through discourse and reflection on one’s own and
others’ experiences and as part of professional development within the con-
text of one’s culture. Ethics provide the basis for conduct in research (Davis,
1990; Munhall, 1988; Punch, 1986). (See also Mishler’s [1986] important work
on co-constructing realities and interviews as conversations and ethics.)
Although IRBs set standards, they are not on site to enforce those standards.
IRBs rely on researchers to act within a code of ethics to protect the rights of
their research participants (Smith, 1992). Rosenblatt (1995) made the point
that the interactive nature of qualitative research that requires direct contact
between participants and researchers can actually prevent researchers from
engaging in the ethical self-delusion that can occur when researchers have lit-
tle contact with participants. This is because researchers and participants
actually co-construct ethical realities during the course of the interviews.
Cieurzo and Keitel (1999) argued that qualitative research is an unfolding and
emerging process, therefore participants cannot be fully informed about all
the potential consequences of the research or even all the particulars that will
be covered. Lipson (1994) listed several ethical issues related to qualitative
research. These are discussed in the following.
Informed consent. Participants must fully understand what it means to par-
ticipate in terms of risks and benefits. Fully understanding can pose difficul-
ties when there are cultural differences and language barriers. It is the respon-
sibility of the researcher to make certain that participants understand their
rights, especially the right to not participate or to withdraw from the research
at any time. But cultural differences and language are not the only barriers.
Brody, Gluck, and Aragon (1997) conducted an interview study with under-
graduate students that asked about their experiences with participating in
psychology experiments in their university. In the course of their study they
discovered that most of the participants had only a limited understanding of
the purpose of a signed consent.
Deception or covert research. Although carrying out covert research is rare
today, Lipson (1994) stated that the issue is not so much one of either decep-
tion or covertness. She placed covertness on a continuum and stated there are
times when it is easier to go ahead and gather certain data when making
observations rather than interrupting a situation to ask for consent, thereby
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 349

altering the course of events. When deciding how to proceed in such

instances, the researcher must rely on his or her code of ethics to judge the pro-
priety of using information gathered in this manner. Perhaps the best way to
proceed is to obtain post hoc consent to use the information as data. In making
judgments, the safety and integrity of participants always comes first. When
there are potential risks along these lines, data collection must give way to the
rights of participants.
Researcher responsibility to informants, sponsors, and colleagues. Researchers
have a responsibility to maintain confidentiality, to keep appointments, and
to provide for the personal safety and well-being of participants. There is also
the responsibility to publish findings and to do justice to participants and
their cultures.
Risks versus benefits. The benefits of research to participants should out-
weigh the risks. Beyond emotional risks, the researcher should be aware of
any social, political, legal, and economic complications that might result from
having participated in research and take measures to safeguard against these.
Reciprocity and intervention. Although researchers do give back to partici-
pants in a variety of ways (e.g., giving information, writing letters, making
phone calls, etc.), problems can arise when participants make requests that go
beyond the social norms. Although a request might not be considered unethi-
cal from the cultural or social perspective of the participant, it might be uneth-
ical according to a researcher’s standards. Again, only the researcher can
make a decision of how to act under these conditions, responding to a partici-
pant’s request according to his or her code of ethics.
One can’t talk about ethics without talking about the issue of exploitation.
Usually this term refers to power and status differences, with some research-
ers believing that the balance of power tends to be in favor of the researcher
(Thompson, 1995). We disagree with this latter point and hold the view that
during qualitative research, especially that using the unstructured interactive
interview, the balance of power is in the hands of participants. One could
argue that all research exploits participants to some extent and that research-
ers stand to benefit more than individual participants from any given
research project. Careers are built on research, status is enhanced, and in some
cases, there is even financial compensation in the form of grants. Yet, the issue
is more complicated than it appears at first glance. There is reciprocity
between researcher and participant, as noted earlier in this article, with each
gaining something from the experience. In addition, there are benefits to soci-
ety in the form of professional knowledge development. These benefits are
not undervalued or overlooked by participants, who often consider the
opportunity to participate in research as the opportunity to give back indi-
rectly to society.
350 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The issue of whether qualitative unstructured interviews meet the guide-
lines for expedited reviews by IRBs is complex, with no simple answer. We
ourselves have not encountered any situations that have provoked undue
distress or lasting harm, at least that we are aware of. There is considerable
reporting in the literature that research participants find unstructured inter-
view validating and offering opportunities for introspection and growth
(Frank, 2000; Honeycutt, 1995; Hutchinson et al., 1994; Ortiz, 2001). Even
when signs of distress are reported, researchers have not provided any evi-
dence of lasting harm (Brzuzy et al., 1997; Kavanaugh & Ayres, 1998; Turnbull
et al., 1988; Wong, 1998). That is not to say that harm has never happened or
that the potential is not there. However, it appears to be a rare occurrence,
most likely because potential participants have the right to refuse to partici-
pate in the study and do control the course of unstructured interviews
through what they choose or not choose to reveal.
In regards to IRB reviews, we do not believe that it is justified to hold
unstructured interviews up to the same rigid criteria as biomedical studies.
With the latter, the threat of lasting physical damage, psychological conse-
quences, and even death is very real, especially with drug studies, whereas
we could not locate a single reported case of lasting psychological harm from
studies using unstructured interviews. However, we acknowledge that even
a single case of long-lasting psychological harm would provide evidence for
more stringent IRB review of qualitative studies, and we are open to reports of
this nature.
As it now stands, who benefits from a full IRB review of qualitative pro-
posals using the same criteria that are applied to biomedical studies? Is it the
participant, who can then be assured that the interview or observation will
cause no harm? Or is it the institutions or researchers, who are then absolved
if something untoward occurs? The uncertain course of research using
unstructured interviews means that no one can anticipate what will happen
or how the participant will respond emotionally when recalling and reliving
their experiences. Depending on the person and the situation, any recalled
event may be distressful to some persons. Perhaps we have forgotten that
such distress should be considered within the context of what is being
revealed and ask: “Is the manifestation of distress ‘normal’ and of a nature
that one might find in everyday life?” That is to say, is it no greater than what
would occur if the story were being told to family members or friends?
Before concluding, we would like to offer some suggestions that IRB com-
mittees might use when reviewing studies planning to use unstructured
interviews to gather data on sensitive topics. We phrase the suggestions as
questions. Answers to the questions might make it easier for committees to
expedite their reviews.
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 351

Consideration of the researcher’s skills. Have the researchers (or the inter-
viewers they will hire) reported receiving any training in qualitative research
especially in the techniques of interviewing? That is, have they taken a
course(s) that specifically enables them to learn the skills they will need to
conduct an interview in a manner that does not provoke distress and that
enables them to recognize signs of distress and take measures to diffuse it if
necessary?
Doing qualitative research has become trendy, and a qualitative piece is
often included as part of a larger quantitative study. This is not to say that
quantitative researchers don’t know how to conduct interviews but that they
may not have the intensive training and feedback that qualitatively trained
researchers receive as part of their programs. The question for the IRB com-
mittees would be where and how was the researcher and interviewers trained
to do interviews.
Level of risks varies with the topic of the interview. Not all studies using
unstructured interactive interviews are likely to generate the same degree of
distress in participants. Certain topics are more likely to arouse distress than
others, such as spousal abuse and those that explore major illness and loss or
that are incriminating or embarrassing. When dealing with “sensitive top-
ics,” it is important for IRBs to determine if the researchers considered the
potential that strong emotions might be aroused by the research. Also, have
the researchers built into their proposals procedures for evaluating and ter-
minating an interview should participants become severely distressed? For
example, have researchers stated that interviewers will remain with the par-
ticipants until they reach a stable emotional state? Have the researchers
assembled a list of local counselors that can be given to participants should
distress arise during or after the interview? Have the researchers made provi-
sions to call participants several days or even a week after the interview to
determine if there is any lingering distress?
In the end, the onus of responsibility for protecting the rights of partici-
pants lies not so much with IRB committees as with researchers who are ulti-
mately alone with participants in the research situation. Unstructured inter-
active interviews involve reciprocity as well as risks. Without skill in doing
interviews and a strong code of ethics to guide them, researchers cannot carry
out their mission, which is to collect valuable data while protecting the rights
of participants. With skill and ethics, dignity, respect, and concern will auto-
matically follow.

NOTES
1. When the authors speak of “everyday life risks,” they are referring to the level of
emotional distress often experienced by persons when they tell their stories to family
members and friends. Contrary to researchers, family members and friends often don’t
352 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

want to hear the story and/or are embarrassed by the intensity of the emotional
response.
2. It is important to point out that not every interview ends with tea and cookies, nor
should it. What is being brought out here is that sometimes participants need time at
the end of an interview to “come out” of their deep emergence in their story. This com-
ing out is especially important if the narration is about a sensitive topic that is difficult
and emotional for the participant to talk about. It is important that researchers recog-
nize participants need time to get over their emotional response. In other words, it is not
a matter of taking your information and running. Part of the time allotted for an inter-
view includes time given to participants to go through the phase of emergence so as not
to abruptly cut off the intimate context of storytelling.
3. The provision of information, feedback, or validation at the conclusion of an inter-
view is not to be confused with counseling. It must be kept in mind that during inter-
views two or more human beings come together for a temporary interaction. Similar to
other human beings in a social context, they often exchange information that might
benefit the other and/or offer validation about behavior. Often interviewers have infor-
mation about places and things that might be considered useful to the participants.
Also, participants sometimes have information related to the topic of inquiry that
might be useful to the researcher but that is not part of the narrative. There is no reason
why researcher and interviewee can’t share information or give validation just as two
other human beings might do. The important thing is to not interrupt the narrative dis-
course but to wait until the storytelling comes to a natural ending.
4. This four-phase description of the interview process primarily reflects the experi-
ence of these authors. We do not state that there is anything new in these phases for
researchers who do unstructured interviews. However, not all persons on institutional
review board committees are qualitative researchers and therefore may not know how
these are conducted. Also, we want them to know that there are many styles of inter-
viewing—and variations within these—but all are invariably conducted with sensitiv-
ity and caring. Although researchers are gathering data, they remain attuned to partici-
pants’ emotional and physical state. If they notice distress, researchers take action to
mitigate that distress (Ramos, 1989). During the most intensely emotional periods, par-
ticipants are given the freedom and time to cry, vent, and express anger if necessary.
They can stop talking until they’ve regained composure or stop completely. This again
is not to be confused with counseling but is an empathetic and caring response that
might occur between any two human beings.

REFERENCES
Booth, T., & Booth, W. (1994). The use of depth interviewing with vulnerable subjects:
Lessons from a research study of parents with learning difficulties. Social Science
Medicine, 39, 415-424.
Brody, J. L., Gluck, J. P., & Aragon, A. S. (1997). Participants’ understanding of the pro-
cess of psychological research: Informed consent. Ethics and Behavior, 7, 285-298.
Brzuzy, S., Ault, A., & Segal, E. A. (1997). Conducting qualitative interviews with
women survivors of trauma. AFFILIA, 12, 76-83.
Cassell, J. (1980). Ethical principles for conducting fieldwork. American Anthropologist,
82, 28-41.
 Corbin, Morse / DEALING WITH SENSITIVE TOPICS 353

Cieurzo, C., & Keitel, M. A. (1999). Ethics in qualitative research. In M. Kopala & L. A. Suzuki
(Eds.), Using qualitative methods in psychology (pp. 61-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cowels, K. V. (1988). Issues in qualitative research on sensitive topics. Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 10, 163-179.
Davis, A. J. (1990). Ethical issues in nursing research. Western Journal of Nursing
Research, 12, 413-416.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (1998). Interviewing: The art of science. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp. 47-78). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Frank, A. W. (2000). The standpoint of the storyteller. Qualitative Health Research, 10,
354-365.
Honeycutt, J. M. (1995). The oral history interview and reports of imagined interac-
tions. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 6(4), 63-69.
Hutchinson, H. A., Wilson, M. E., & Wilson, H. S. (1994). Benefits of participating in
research interviews. Image Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 161-164.
Kavanaugh, K., & Ayres, L. (1998). “Not as bad as it could have been”: Assessing and
mitigating harm during research on sensitive topics. Research in Nursing and Health,
21, 91-97.
Kleinman, S., & Copp, M. A. (1993). Introduction. In S. Kleinman & M. A. Copp (Eds.),
Emotions and fieldwork (pp. 1-67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kvale, S. (1984). The qualitative research interview. Journal of Phenomenological Psychol-
ogy, 14, 171-196.
Larossa, R., Bennett, L. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1981). Ethical dilemmas in qualitative family
research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 303-313.
Lee, R. M., & Renzetti, C. M. (1990). The problems of researching sensitive topics. Ameri-
can Behavioral Scientist, 33, 510-528.
Lipson, J. G. (1994). Ethical issues in ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in
qualitative research methods (pp. 333-355). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
May, K. A. (1989). Interview techniques in qualitative research: Concerns and chal-
lenges. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A contemporary dialogue
(pp. 171-182). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.
McSherry, B. (1995). Research involving interviews with individuals who have experi-
enced traumatic events: Some guidelines. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2, 155-164.
Mishler, E. G. (1986). Research interviewing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mishler, E. G. (1999). Storylines: Craftists’ narratives of identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Munhall, P. L. (1988). Ethical considerations in qualitative research. Western Journal of
Nursing Research, 10, 150-162.
Morse, J. M. (2002). Interviewing the ill. In J. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook
of interview research (pp. 317-330). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
National Institute of Health. (1998). Cancer trials: Recommendation for development of
informed consent form. Retrieved August 2002, from http//camcertrials.nci.nih.gov/
researchers/safeguards/consent/recs.html
Ortiz, S. M. (2001). How interviewing wives became therapy for wives of professional
athletes: Learning from a serendipitous experience. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 192-220.
Punch, M. (1986). The politics and ethics of fieldwork. Qualitative research methods 3. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Ramos, M. C. (1989). Some ethical implications of qualitative research. Research in
Nursing and Health, 12, 57-63.
354 QUALITATIVE INQUIRY / June 2003

Rew, L., Bechtel, D., & Sapp, A. (1993). Self-as-instrument in qualitative research.
Nursing Research, 42, 300-301.
Rosenblatt, P. C. (1995). Ethics of qualitative interviewing with grieving families. Death
Studies, 19, 139-155.
Rubinstein, R. L. (2002). The qualitative interview with older informants: Some key
questions. In G. D. Rowles & N. E. Schoenberg (Eds.), Qualitative gerontology: A con-
temporary perspective (pp. 137-153). New York: Springer.
Schoenberg, N. F. (2002). Introduction Part IV. In G. D. Rowles & N. E. Schoenberg
(Eds.), Qualitative gerontology: A contemporary perspective (pp. 130-135). New York:
Springer.
Schutz, F. (1992). Pressure and guilt: War experiences of a young German soldier and
their biographical implications (Part 1). International Sociology, 7, 187-208.
Shea, C. (2000). Don’t talk to humans: The crackdown on social science research. Lingua
Franca, 10(6), 27-34.
Smith, L. (1992). Ethical issues in interviewing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 98-103.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Thompson, B. (1995). Ethical dimensions in trauma research. American Sociologist, 26(2),
54-69.
Turnbull, J. E., McLeod, J. D., Callahan, J. M., & Kessler, R. C. (1988). Who should ask?
Ethical interviewing in psychiatric epidemiology studies. American
Orthospsychiatric Association, 58, 228-239.
Wong, I. M. (1998). The ethics of rapport: Institutional safeguards, resistance, and
betrayal. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 178-199.

Juliet Corbin, D.N.Sc, is a senior scientist at the International Institute for

Qualitative Methodology at the University of Alberta. She collaborated with
Anslem Strauss for many years, coauthoring Unending Work and Care
(1988), Shaping a New Health Care System (1990), and Basics of Quali-
tative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques (1998).
Her research interests are in the areas of chronic illness, the sociology of work,
and the professions.

Janice M. Morse (Ph.D. [Nurs.], Ph.D. [Anthro], D.Nurs [Hon], FAAN) is

the scientific director of the International Institute for Qualitative Methodol-
ogy, Canadian Institutes of Health Research senior scientist, Alberta Heritage
Foundation for Medical Research senior health scientist, professor, faculty of
nursing, University of Alberta, and the 1997 Sigma Theta Tau Episteme Lau-
reate. She has published extensively in the areas of comfort, suffering, and
qualitative methods and serves as coeditor of International Journal of Quali-
tative Methods and editor of Qualitative Health Research. She has
authored, coauthored, or edited 14 books, including Read Me First: A User’s
Guide to Qualitative Analysis (2002) with Lyn Richards, The Nature of
Evidence in Qualitative Inquiry (2001), Completing a Qualitative Pro-
ject: Details and Dialogue (1997), and Critical Issues in Qualitative
Research Methods (1994).