Do I Analyse the Interview or Just the Interviewee? The Role of the Interviewer in Transcript Analysis
In qualitative research, we often treat interview transcripts as windows into participants’ minds. Capturing their thoughts, stories, and meanings. But what if that window is filtered, shaped, or even tinted by the interviewer’s presence? What if, in our quest to interpret what was said, we’re overlooking how it was elicited?
As researchers, we’re trained to “let the data speak.” Yet, the interviewer is part of what gives the data its voice. The questions they ask and how they ask them can frame, reframe, constrain, or open up entire lines of thought. This blog unpacks when and how to include the interviewer in your qualitative data analysis and why doing so might radically change your findings.
It’s easy to assume that the participant's words are the data, and the interviewer is simply the conduit. But interview data is co-constructed. In semi-structured or unstructured interviews especially, the interviewer plays a formative role in shaping the discussion. The choice of language, the sequencing of prompts, even subtle cues like hesitation or affirmation, all influence how the participant responds.
Ignoring this dynamic can flatten complex interactions into simple “answers,” stripping them of context. This is particularly problematic in studies dealing with sensitive topics, where the power relationship between researcher and participant may shape what is said or left unsaid.
When the Interviewer Should Be Included in Your Analysis
Certain qualitative methods rely on acknowledging the interactive nature of interviews. These include:
1. Reflexive Thematic Analysis
Reflexive approaches ask the researcher to recognise their role in generating and interpreting the data. The interviewer’s influence (their assumptions, reactions, and framing) is not noise to be cleaned up but a layer of meaning to be unpacked.
2. Discourse and Conversation Analysis
These approaches explicitly study how meaning is developed in natural language. Here, the interviewer’s interventions are a fundamental part of what’s being analysed.
3. Multi-interviewer Studies
When different researchers conduct interviews within a study, variations in style, tone, and approach can introduce inconsistencies. Analysing interviewer input helps track those shifts and maintain rigour.
4. Topics with Cultural, Political, or Emotional Sensitivity
In contexts where participants are negotiating taboos or discussing vulnerability, the interviewer’s presence may significantly influence what gets expressed. Analysing the interaction, not just the participant’s words, helps you avoid superficial readings.
When the Interviewer Might Not Require Deep Analysis
Not every study demands full interrogation of the interviewer’s role. In some cases, focusing exclusively on the participant’s content is appropriate.
In structured interviews with highly standardised questions and minimal deviation, the interviewer’s role is reduced by design. Similarly, in large-sample studies using content-focused thematic analysis, the goal may be to aggregate participant perspectives rather than explore interactional nuance.
Even in these cases, however, the interviewer’s role should be acknowledged in the methodology section, even if not deeply analysed.
Practical Tips: How to Handle Interviewer Influence
If you’ve decided the interviewer’s role matters in your analysis, here are some ways to work with it:
Annotate Actively
Mark interviewer interventions in transcripts. Was the question leading? Was a pause followed by a prompt? Did the interviewer reframe the participant’s answer?
Use Dialogue Tagging and Speaker Labels
If you're using a tool like Leximancer, take advantage of its dialogue tagging and speaker label features. These allow you to differentiate between the interviewer and each participant, making it possible to analyse how responses vary based on what was asked, how it was phrased, and who was asking. You can then explore concept associations or thematic changes across the dialogue, helping you detect subtle patterns in interaction and influence.
Reflect in Your Methodology
Include a reflexive account: who conducted the interviews, their relationship to the topic, and how their presence might have influenced the data.
Ask the Right Questions
Did the interviewer challenge or guide the participant?
Were certain stories encouraged, or others avoided?
How did the interpersonal dynamic shape the unfolding of the narrative?
Ethical and Power Considerations
Qualitative research often takes place in settings where power dynamics are unbalanced, and the interviewer can be a visible part of that structure. Analysing their role becomes even more important when working with marginalised populations or in cross-cultural contexts.
Consider how the identity of the interviewer (in terms of race, gender, profession, or background) may have influenced the conversation. Did the participant speak differently because they felt safe, judged, or misunderstood? Ignoring this risks erasing the very dynamics you are attempting to study.
Reflexivity in Action: Real-World Examples
Let’s take a look at a few brief scenarios where interviewer inclusion added crucial insight:
In a study of patient experiences with chronic illness, participants initially downplayed symptoms, but after the interviewer shared personal familiarity with the condition, the tone shifted, and disclosures deepened.
In a multi-country project, subtle variations in interview tone led to one site producing consistently shorter, less emotionally open transcripts. Including the interviewer’s role helped explain this discrepancy and improved cross-site comparability.
In a project about youth activism, the interviewer's age influenced participants’ openness. Young participants were more candid when interviewed by someone close to their age, and more cautious with older researchers. Reflexive analysis made these patterns explicit.
The Interview as Co-Produced Text
An interview transcript is not a neutral record of “what the participant said.” It’s a dialogic encounter, shaped by interaction, influenced by power, and embedded in context.
By treating the interviewer as part of the data (rather than an invisible hand) we not only honour the complexity of qualitative research but also sharpen the integrity of our analysis.
To fully understand what was said, we must understand that very answer carries the echo of the question that shaped it, and the person who asked it.
