Interviews, Expert

An expert interview is a semistandardized interview by one or more interviewers with a person

identified as a so-called expert and serves to generate data in a research context. This raises the
following questions: What constitutes an expert? Why are experts of such particular interest in a
social and/or political scientific research setting? The answer lies primarily in the knowledge that
they have acquired in the course of their (professional) activities. Experts not only have (a)
specialist professional or technical knowledge and (b) knowledge of organizational procedures
and processes, but they also have (c) interpretative and background knowledge (“know-how”
and “know-why”) in their particular field. Such professional/technical knowledge and process
knowledge are generally explicit knowledge, which experts can usually communicate in a
systematic and deliberate manner. Interpretive and background knowledge is predominantly
tacit and draws on the relevant individual experiences, organizational social practices, or
collective interpretive patterns encountered by an expert in professional practice. People with
this kind of broad knowledge are usually to be found on the middle and upper—occasionally also
on the lower—levels of the organizational hierarchy. Given their position in the organizational
and functional context, experts often have at least a partial chance of putting their knowledge
and action to practical use, that is, accomplishing their own interests and ideas and, thus,
making a decisive contribution to what goes on both inside and outside the organization. This
ability to assert themselves and shape events is generally linked to their position and permits
experts to speak as a representative of an organization and be recognized as such. In this entry,
the history, use, and specific problems of expert interviews are discussed in greater detail.

The History of Expert Interviews

Expert interviews were first encountered primarily in German-speaking countries, where they
have been used increasingly in social, economic, and political science research since the 1980s.
However, it was not until the early 1990s that they slowly began to establish and distinguish
themselves as a specific qualitative social research method. In the meantime, a number of books
have been published on the methodology and methods of interviewing experts, and most
pertinent, newer German-language books on qualitative research methods now also include
expert interviews. The situation is quite different in their English-language counterparts, where—
unlike interviews with the elite—expert interviews are rarely mentioned. In fact, there are many
similarities between these two interview forms, from the sampling and difficulties of gaining
access to the field through to the actual specifics of the interview process. However, the key
difference lies in their target groups: the elite are the powerful, top echelon of a society. Indeed,
the label “elite” is ascribed to a person or group/class of persons with high social, educational,
and economic status and, thus, the power to make (or at least the possibility of making) a
significant impact on society. From a sociology of knowledge perspective, the elite can also be
seen as experts with expert knowledge, but more precisely as experts who have particular
power. In essence, they are top company executives and members of corporate supervisory
bodies, senior civil servants, or high-ranking government officials. The actual person who will be
able to provide the best information for a particular research topic, the type of knowledge
sought, and the position of the interviewees in their hierarchy will ultimately always depend on
the specific research context.

Using Expert Interviews

Depending on the research design and topic(s) being researched, expert interviews can be used
for the following different purposes:

 1. Exploratory expert interviews are used to obtain an overview of and access to a less
familiar field.
 2. Systematizing expert interviews serve to systematically reconstruct “objective,” specialized
technical and procedural knowledge in a particular field.
 3. Theory-generating expert interviews focus not just on specialized expert knowledge but
also on the tacit and subjective interpretative and background knowledge gained through
(professional) experience.
Many research projects combine the use of expert interviews with other methods (mixed
methods or triangulation of methods). In political science research, for example, expert
interviews are often used in combination with document analysis to ascertain the history behind
certain documents. This is usually done less with a view to validating the data and results but
more often to establish a broad picture of social practices in a specific field.

Sampling and Access Problems

Selecting the appropriate interviewees for a particular research project depends greatly on the
actual research topic(s) and specific field of research. There are often only a limited number of
experts in a given field. In such cases, it is best (where possible) to interview all relevant
experts, particularly since they will often have their own networks. Such networks can help
encourage experts to participate in an interview to ensure their views are included. Altruism, or
even a desire to enhance their own status, can also be a possible motive for agreeing to an
interview. The first step in the sampling process involves analyzing literature or media reports
and talking to relevant sources—people who are familiar with the field—to identify the key
experts. The original sample should then be extended in the interview phase by asking the
interviewees themselves to recommend further experts.

Time restrictions and a general lack of willingness to provide information can frequently be a
problem when seeking access to experts, so it is particularly important that the first contact—
either in writing or by phone—is carefully prepared. To encourage experts to participate in an
interview, the first contact with them should briefly outline the goals and relevance (e.g.,
innovativeness) of the research and explain how important it is that they participate. Interviews
should be calculated to last no longer than 45 minutes (even if they ultimately take longer in
reality). If a face-to-face meeting cannot be arranged, an interview can also be conducted by
phone. One problem with this option is the lack of control over the interview situation: The
interviewee might, for example, be distracted by other tasks. Similarly, no account can be taken
of body language or gestures.

Interview Guidelines/Topic Guide

Drawing up a set of interview guidelines is an essential part of the preparation for an expert
interview and familiarization with the relevant vocabulary and field of research. Such guidelines
should structure the central topics in line with the expected course of the interview and can be
sent to any experts who request information about the interview prior to the event. Nonetheless,
to ensure that the interviews flow as authentically as possible, the guidelines should not be
overly detailed. In the actual interview, they serve as an aide-mémoire and prevent the
interviewer from overlooking any important questions. However, they should only be used as
guidelines and not worked through rigidly point for point: Interviewees should be given the
maximum opportunity to express their own opinions and ideas. The more an interviewer
succeeds in getting an expert to talk, for example, through a narrative generating introductory
questions and request for concrete examples the greater the chance that tacit knowledge (in the
form of interpretive and background knowledge) will emerge in the interview. This knowledge is
particularly relevant for reconstructing social practices in a particular field.

Interaction Situations and Effects

Expert interviews are—like all interviews—a form of social interaction. The basic intent is to get
the interviewees to say what they think needs to be said in a given situation. “What” they say
and “how” they say it depends on many different elements of the interaction—from expectations
and motives for participation to situational aspects such as time pressure, sympathy or
antipathy, and trust or mistrust. The interviewee's capacity to remember and the interviewer's
interviewing skills, way of asking questions, openness, inquisitiveness, self-assurance, and so on
will also influence the conversation. Gender relations can also play a twofold role in the
interview. First, most of the experts are men, as there are relatively few women in management
positions. Second, the probability of the participants “doing gender” (i.e., assuming gender-
specific roles, particularly in a mixed-gender setting) becomes highly likely. Of particular
relevance for interaction in an expert interview setting are the status and relationships the
interviewee accords the interviewer. The latter is typically perceived as a co-expert, a potential
critic, an accomplice, a controlling authority, or a layperson. These associations affect the
interviewee's behavior, willingness to communicate and manner of communication, attitude, and
so on. Interview effects resulting from an individual interview constellation cannot be avoided
and are not necessarily disadvantageous. They may even be of strategic benefit. For example, if
they consider the interviewer a layperson, interviewees may well be more willing to provide
information about their field of expertise and experience. Interviewers should also be aware that
even research-related interviews are a form of social interaction and do not permit a “pure” or
even objective gathering of data.

Analysis
There is no standard procedure for analyzing expert interviews. In principle, all qualitative social
research analysis methods can be used, for example, the code-based procedures common in
grounded theory or qualitative content analysis, or the sequential analyses applied in
hermeneutic sociology of knowledge or objective hermeneutics. A combination of different
methods is also admissible. The most suitable form of analysis ultimately depends on the actual
research project. Computer-assisted analysis using special qualitative data management
programs can help but cannot automatically complete the data analysis. Even if computers are
used to assist with data analysis, it remains the task of the researchers to interpret the data in a
transparent, plausible, and comprehensible manner.

Ethics
Given their prominent position in what is often a small and clear field, it can be difficult to keep
the identity of experts hidden. Consequently, the researcher should always clarify how much of
the information obtained from the interviewee can be published in a nonanonymous form (e.g.,
as quotations). In some cases, it may be necessary to have the interviewee expressly authorize
the use of the minutes or interview transcript for analysis or publication purposes. The expert
should, in all cases, be given the assurance that all data will be treated in confidence.
 —Beate Littig

Further Readings
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (2009). Interviewing experts: Methodology and
practice. Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Collins, H., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dexter, L. A. (2006). Elite and specialized interviewing (with a new introduction by A. Ware & M.
Sánchez-Jankowski). Colchester, UK: ECPR Press. (Original work published 1969)

Flick, U., ed. , von Kardorff, E., ed. , & Steinke, I. (eds.). (2004). A companion to qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gubrium, J., ed. , & Holstein, J. (eds.). (2002). Handbook of interview research: Context and
methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Entry Citation:

Littig, Beate. "Interviews, Expert." International Encyclopedia of Political Science. Ed. Bertrand Badie, Dirk Berg-

Schlosser, and Leonardo Morlino. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2011. 1344-47. SAGE Reference Online. Web. 21 Jan.

2012.