Employers use different kinds of interview questions to gain a variety of information from candidates and find the perfect person for a job. While probing a candidate allows them to elaborate on topics on their own, prompting a candidate guides them to a particular answer. If you’re preparing for a meeting with a potential employer, you may benefit from practicing your answers to prompt and probe questions. In this article, we discuss prompt vs. probe interviews, including the definitions and key differences between these meeting types.
4.5 Probing and prompting | Qualitative Methods | Qualitative Interviewing | UvA
Type of questions
The type of questions varies between prompt and probe interviews. This is because probe questions are typically vaguer and prompt questions are more specific. This is also because questions vary based on the exact nature of the interview and the topics of discussion. Here are some examples of probe questions:
Here are some examples of prompt questions or statements:
What is a probe interview?
A probe interview is one in which an interviewer explores or investigates a candidates answers further. To probe someone in an interview context is to ask for more information, detail or specificity. Interviewers may ask analytical, follow-up questions to understand the reason and explanation behind feelings, actions, events or other areas. Probing strategies give interviewees the opportunity to elaborate on their statements and speak freely about their experiences.
Probing interview questions help an interviewer do the following:
Probing questions may escalate in direction throughout the course of an interview, depending on the approach of the interviewer. Here are some different types of probes:
What is a prompt interview?
A prompt interview is one in which an interviewer encourages a candidate to say certain statements or give particular answers. To prompt someone in this context is to remind, cue or tell them about what they might say or do. Interviewers may ask leading questions or make suggestions to explain information and guide the interviewee to a thought or conclusion. For example, if an interviewer asks a candidate, “What do you like about the field of education?” and the candidate lacks an answer, the interviewer might offer a follow-up question like, “Is it because you enjoy helping students?”
Place in an interview
Probing and prompting typically occur at different moments during the course of an interview. Those conducting an interview may start to probe a candidate with indirect strategies if the candidate is quiet or lacks detail in their answers. Heres a typical order or arrangement for the probing approach, from indirect to direct probing:
Usually, interviewers only use the prompting technique after theyve already tried indirect and direct probing. Its important that interviewers can apply any techniques they use fairly across candidates to ensure valid assessment results. For example, if they provide prompts, leading questions and example answers for one candidate, they may want to consider doing the same for others. Fair and consistent interview practices are especially important in qualitative research contexts.
I was introduced to a rule driven approach originally contrived by Michael Brenner to prepare market researchers for their task. What follows is a version of the Brenner process4, shorn of a few of his rules. The essence of this approach is that the interviewer should be proficient in five main areas. The interviewer should:
Several thoughts are sparked by this description: the approach might be (and often is) equally readily applied in many consultancy settings, although this might come as a surprise to the more politically radical social scientists. The information consultant hired in to help sort out future information services is hardly the detached neutral enquirer. Secondly, how can advocates of this approach guard themselves against slipping into a paternalistic view of ‘studying’ oppressed and under-developed groups or of plunging into self-indulgence masquerading as research? Thirdly, why do people who espouse the Holy Grail of advocacy and partnership find it necessary to belittle the self-awareness of ‘more traditional sociologists and researchers’. To quote Fontana and Frey again, the traditionalists apparently follow a ‘how to’ approach to interviewing “where the illusion exists that the better they execute the various steps, the better they will apprehend the reality that they assume is out there, ready to be plucked.”6
Now we are ready for what should be the easy part, recording the answers – unfortunately the huge beginner’s mistake is to forget to do this (we have huge amounts of videotape evidence to prove it!) You should take notes even if you are recording the interview – this will help you make sense of the replies at the time and give you a quick route into the interview afterwards. Remember that it takes about five hours to fully transcribe one hour of a recording. If you are not recording by other means, try to capture as much as possible of what people say in their own words. This should be the hard job. If you are finding it easy you are probably not probing enough – so why bother interviewing?
Empathetic interviewing can be a powerful way of exploring issues. It can also readily become an explicitly political type of engagement. Fontana and Frey (two leading advocates of the empathetic approach) assert that the interviewer then “becomes an advocate and partner in the study, hoping to be able to use the results to advocate social policies and ameliorate the conditions of the interviewee,” before tellingly adding that “The preference is to study oppressed and under-developed groups.”5
I have yet to come across a researcher who holds to this illusion or who regards the interview interaction as anything less than a complex, messy and continuously problematic mutual discourse. However, some researchers probably do consider that an approach to consistency in questioning may be of use in ensuring that significant conversational heads or question areas (as seen by the interviewer) are explored as an alternative to wallowing in a self-created (or even mutually-created) conversational mire. This may be self-delusional, but is it likely to be any more so than imagining that the sociologist or researcher can expect to enter into the world of their interviewees to the point where they can ameliorate the conditions of their fleeting ‘partners’?
FAQ
What is a probe in qualitative interviewing?
What are prompt questions in an interview?
- Clarification questions, which help eliminate misunderstandings.
- Example questions, which ask for a specific example to get a better picture.
- Evaluation questions, which help when assessment is needed by asking ‘how.
What are the different types of probes that can be used in interviews?
- Walk me through your resume.
- Tell me about yourself.
- How did you hear about this position?
- Why do you want to work for this company?
- What are your career goals?
- What would you like to accomplish in the first three months?
- What is you management style?
