Dyadic Interviews

Hello Qualitative Mind,

Have you read about all of Quali Q’s Programs? If not, I invite you to visit the Programs tab on the website and learn more about the different ways Quali Q can help you move your qualitative project along with ethics and confidence. The reason I’m starting the blog post with this question is because today’s topic is inspired by one of my current consulting projects.

The research team and Quali Q will be examining women’s experiences with managing a certain chronic health condition postpartum, and we’re currently deciding on how data will be collected. Because we’re still going through COVID-19 and women will be up to 24 weeks postpartum, interviews will likely be conducted online or via telephone. Additionally, we’d like to interview women’s partners and, for that reason, I went back to some old notes about dyadic interviews.

Dyadic interviews are not “mini focus groups”.

Morgan and Colleagues (2013)

What are dyadic interviews?

Dyadic interviews bring together two participants who will interact and respond to open-ended questions. These two participants have a chance to co-construct their version of the answer on a research topic. One’s comments may draw from the other’s responses, and, different from individual interviews, the interviewer has less control over data collection. On the other hand, the interviewer would have more control (with less participant interaction) than in focus groups.

Dyadic interviews are not “mini focus groups.” Morgan and colleagues (2013) make it clear that a dyadic interview is not a “mini focus group” (p. 1276) but a data collection technique with its own opportunities and challenges. When compared to focus groups, dyadic interviews are more feasible to be conducted using online technology or over the phone, and can work well between people with existing relationships (e.g., couples). 

There are both strengths and “risks” when conducting dyadic interviews. Let’s begin with strengths…In dyadic interviews participants are likely to interact and easily engage with one another without much probing coming from the interviewer. Moreover, the number of participants in a study using dyads will be twice what they would be in studies using one-on-one interviews. For participants who suffer with certain health conditions, such as Alzheimer’s, dyadic interviews are less overwhelming than focus groups and, as a result, more likely to be successful without causing participants’ discomfort.

On the other hand, the easy flow in the discussion between participants might be a risk for data validity if one participant is more eloquent than the other, and dominates the conversation (something that commonly happens and needs to be addressed in focus groups). Also, the interviewer might find it harder to recognize their role in the interview process and, as such, become less attentive to their own thoughts and perceptions.

I confess I’m excited with the prospect of using dyadic interviews for my current project, especially because there will be an opportunity to explore couple’s shared storytelling around a major life event (i.e., the birth of a child) while coping with a chronic health condition that demands constant attention. I think this data collection technique will be extremely useful for understanding women’s health practices, decisions (and shared decision-making), as well as overall experiences during postpartum. When compared to pregnancy, the postpartum period has received far less attention; and based on my personal and professional experience, I’m thankful this is starting to change. As much as possible, I will share our experiences (as I’m not going to be working alone on the project) with dyadic interviews.

Talk soon,

Maira Quintanilha