Multi-source Semi-structured Interview
Also known as: multi-informant semi-structured interview, multi-perspective semi-structured interview, multi-source qualitative interview, triangulated semi-structured interview
A multi-source semi-structured interview strategy collects qualitative data via guided, open-ended interviews from two or more distinct groups or perspectives relevant to the same phenomenon. By deliberately querying multiple vantage points — such as managers and employees, patients and clinicians, or teachers and students — the researcher can compare, contrast, and triangulate accounts, producing a richer and more balanced picture than any single-source approach allows.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use a multi-source semi-structured interview strategy when the research question involves a phenomenon that is experienced or enacted by more than one type of actor, and when understanding how different perspectives relate to each other is central to the inquiry. It is particularly well suited to organizational research, health services research, educational evaluation, and policy studies where power differences, role boundaries, or information asymmetries between groups are substantively important. Do not use this design when only one stakeholder group is relevant to the research question, when resources allow only a minimal number of interviews (making adequate sampling of multiple groups impossible), or when the goal is statistical generalization rather than in-depth, perspective-sensitive understanding.
Strengths & limitations
- Triangulation across sources substantially strengthens the credibility and transferability of qualitative findings.
- Reveals discrepancies between perspectives that a single-source design would miss entirely, often the most theoretically interesting result.
- The semi-structured format balances comparability (shared core questions) with flexibility (tailored probing per group).
- Appropriate for complex social settings where phenomena are co-constructed by multiple actors with differing roles.
- Well aligned with reflexive and critical research traditions that foreground power, position, and partial knowledge.
- Requires substantially more time and resources than single-source interview studies — multiple guide versions, more participants, and more complex analysis.
- Achieving sufficient depth within each source group is challenging; spreading sampling too thinly across many groups produces shallow data for each.
- Ensuring genuine comparability across source-specific guides demands careful methodological attention; inconsistencies undermine cross-source analysis.
- Reporting complexity increases: the researcher must present findings from each source coherently while also addressing cross-source patterns.
Frequently asked
How many source groups are typical?
Two or three source groups is most common. Beyond three, the analytical complexity and resource demands grow rapidly, and depth within each group may suffer. The number of sources should be driven by the research question — include every group whose distinct perspective is necessary to answer it, and no more.
How many participants do I need per source group?
The standard qualitative guidance of 5–15 participants per group applies, with the goal of reaching thematic saturation within each source. In practice, 6–8 interviews per group often suffices for focused research questions. Fewer than 3–4 per group makes it difficult to identify patterns that are attributable to the group's perspective rather than individual idiosyncrasy.
Should the interview guide be the same for all source groups?
The core topics and primary questions should be consistent across groups to enable comparison, but language, examples, and follow-up probes should be adapted to each group. A nurse and a hospital administrator may need very different framings of the same core question to produce comparable, meaningful responses.
What do I do when different sources give contradictory accounts?
Divergence is a finding, not a problem to be resolved. Report the contradiction, explore what it reveals about the phenomenon (e.g., differing interests, asymmetric information, role-based perception), and discuss what it means for the study's conclusions. Convergence strengthens confidence; divergence deepens understanding.
Is this the same as triangulation?
Multi-source interviewing is one form of data triangulation — specifically, source triangulation. Triangulation also includes method triangulation (combining qualitative and quantitative methods) and investigator triangulation (multiple coders). Citing multi-source interviewing as a triangulation strategy is methodologically appropriate as long as the specific type of triangulation is specified.
Sources
- Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN: 978-0198745754
- Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). Sage. ISBN: 978-0761919711
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Multi-source Semi-structured Interview. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/survey-methodology/multi-source-semi-structured-interview
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Focus GroupQualitative↔ compare
- In-Depth InterviewQualitative↔ compare
- Longitudinal Semi-structured InterviewSurvey Methodology↔ compare
- Semi-Structured InterviewQualitative↔ compare
- Triangulated Semi-structured InterviewSurvey Methodology↔ compare