Abstract
Introduction Interviews are central to many qualitative studies in health professions education (HPE). However, researchers often rely only on oral questioning despite the existence of techniques tailored to elicit the rich data needed to address complex problems and meaningfully engage participants. Elicitation techniques are strategies – e.g. participant photography, neighbourhood walks – used to generate rich conversations, but guidance on these techniques is scattered across literatures from diverse fields. In this synthesis, we offer an overview of the elicitation techniques available and advice about how to choose between them.
Methods We conducted an integrative review, drawing on methodological literature from across the health and social sciences. Our interdisciplinary searches yielded 3056 citations. We included 293 citations that were methodologically focused and discussed elicitation techniques used in interviews with adults. We then extracted specific elicitation techniques, summarizing each technique to capture key features, as well as strengths and weaknesses. From this, we developed a framework to help researchers identify challenges in their interview-based research, and to select elicitation techniques that address their challenges.
Results Elicitation techniques serve two main purposes: they can enrich data and engage participants in new ways. To enrich data, researchers might seek to shift conversations away from participants’ entrenched narratives, to externalize conversations on sensitive topics, or to elicit affect, tacit knowledge, or contextual details. When engaging participants in new ways, researchers might seek to increase equity between the researcher and participant or interview accessibility across diverse participant populations.
Discussion When chosen with study goals in mind, elicitation techniques can enrich interview data. To harness this potential, we need to re-conceptualize interviews as co-production of knowledge by researcher(s) and participant(s). To make interviews more accessible, we need to consider flexibility so that each participant can engage in ways that best suit their needs and preferences.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Support was received from the Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
