Common Mistakes in Psychology Dissertation Interviews

Common Mistakes in Psychology Dissertation Interviews

Qualitative interviews are one of the most widely used methods in psychology dissertations, especially in studies exploring lived experiences, attitudes, decision-making, or sensitive topics. When done well, interviews can produce rich, meaningful data that add depth to psychological research.

However, when editing psychology dissertations, I often see the same recurring problems in how students design, conduct, and report interviews. These issues are rarely about the idea of using interviews itself, but rather about clarity, methodological rigor, and how the process is documented in Chapter 3.

Below are some of the most common mistakes I encounter when editing psychology dissertation interview studies, along with ways to improve them.

1. Unclear Type of Interview Used

A frequent issue is that students simply state they conducted “interviews” without specifying the format.

In psychology research, the type of interview matters. Common approaches include:

• Structured interviews

• Semi-structured interviews

• Unstructured interviews

Each has different implications for flexibility, comparability, and data analysis.

For example, stating only:

Interviews were conducted with participants.

is not sufficient. A stronger description would specify:

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to allow participants to describe their experiences while ensuring consistency across key topic areas.

This clarity helps readers understand the level of control and flexibility in the data collection process.

2. Weak or Missing Interview Guide Description

Many dissertations fail to explain how interview questions were developed.

When editing these sections, I often look for:

• Whether an interview guide was used

• How questions were designed

• Whether questions were pilot tested

• How questions were linked to research aims

Without this information, it is difficult to assess the validity of the data collection process.

A strong methodology section should briefly explain the development of the interview schedule and how it aligns with the research questions.

3. Leading or Biased Interview Questions

Another common problem is the use of leading questions that may influence participant responses.

For example:

• “How did you cope so well with stress during exams?”

• “Why do you think therapy is so effective?”

These questions assume a particular outcome or perspective.

A more neutral approach would be:

• “Can you describe your experience of coping with exam stress?”

• “What are your views on therapy?”

When reviewing dissertations, I often recommend revising questions to reduce assumptions and encourage more open responses.

4. Insufficient Detail About Interview Procedure

Students often provide very little information about how interviews were conducted.

Readers should be able to understand:

• Whether interviews were conducted in person, online, or by phone

• How long each interview lasted

• Whether interviews were recorded

• How consent was obtained before recording

For example:

Interviews were conducted online via video call, lasted approximately 45–60 minutes, and were audio-recorded with participant consent.

This level of detail is often expected in a strong Chapter 3 methodology section.

5. Lack of Reflexivity

Reflexivity refers to the researcher’s awareness of how their presence, assumptions, or identity may influence the research process.

In interview-based psychology research, reflexivity is particularly important because:

• The researcher is directly interacting with participants

• Responses may be influenced by social dynamics

• Interpretation of data is subjective

However, many dissertations fail to include any reflexive discussion at all. A stronger approach includes a brief reflection on how the researcher’s role may have influenced data collection or interpretation.

6. Poor Sampling Justification for Interview Participants

Another frequent issue is unclear or weak justification for participant selection.

Students sometimes state that participants were selected “because they were available” without explaining why those participants were appropriate for the research question.

A stronger dissertation should explain:

• Why the participants were relevant

• How inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied

• How many participants were recruited and why that number was sufficient (often linked to saturation)

7. Confusion Between Data Collection and Data Analysis

Some dissertations blur the distinction between how interviews were conducted and how they were analyzed.

For example, students may describe thematic analysis within the interview procedure section, rather than in a separate analysis section.

A clear structure should separate:

• Data collection (how interviews were conducted)

• Data analysis (how transcripts were analyzed, e.g., thematic analysis, interpretative phenomenological analysis)

This separation improves clarity and methodological organization.

8. Not Explaining Thematic Saturation

In qualitative psychology research, students often mention “data saturation” without explaining what it means or how it was determined.

For example:

Interviews were conducted until saturation was reached.

This is vague.

A stronger explanation might include:

• How saturation was assessed

• Whether new themes stopped emerging

• How decisions were made to stop recruitment

Examiners often expect at least a brief explanation of this process.

9. Missing Information on Transcription

Interview data must be transcribed before analysis, but this step is often underreported.

Common missing details include:

• Whether transcription was verbatim

• Whether software was used

• Whether transcripts were checked for accuracy

Including this information strengthens transparency and credibility.

10. Overly Structured or Overly Flexible Designs Without Justification

Some dissertations use highly structured interviews that limit depth, while others use very unstructured interviews that lack focus—without explaining why.

The key issue is not the choice itself, but the lack of justification.

A strong methodology explains why the chosen level of structure is appropriate for the research aims.

Final Thoughts on Common Mistakes in Psychology Dissertation Interviews

Interviews can be a powerful method in psychology dissertation research, but they require careful design, clear reporting, and thoughtful justification. Many of the issues I encounter when editing interview-based dissertations are not major methodological flaws, but rather missing detail or unclear explanations.

A strong Chapter 3 section should clearly explain the type of interview used, how questions were developed, how participants were selected, and how the data were collected and prepared for analysis. When these elements are presented clearly and consistently, the quality and credibility of the dissertation improve significantly.