It is a good idea. An interview depends critically on cognitive structuring. The interviewee has to understand the interests of the interviewer and marshal their knowledge, experience etc to sustain their role in the conversation. Indeed, from the moment the interviewer starts to speak, the interviewee is refining and modifying their frame of reference. So it makes sense to try to establish a frame of reference beforehand that will give the interviewee a sense of the field of enquiry, its depth and breadth, and the reason why their experience/views/ etc are important.

In general, this shouldn't be a problem. The main argument I can think of against it is that it can limit exploratory research by signaling to the participants which topics matter most to you, rather than getting an "uncued" sense of what matters most to them.

There may be a risk of some participants preparing in advance what they think the researcher wants to hear. A potential source of data contamination. My view.

What happens to the "expectancy effect"? It may become more pronounced when the participants prepare in advance.

Some participants may gain confidence if they know the questions in advance, they may be convinced that they can be good interviewees. They can prepare the answers that become more elaborate, complete. I think there might be also an ethical advantage - after seeing the questions they can withdraw from the research.

On the other hand, the spontaneity of the answers is lost. Not only can they build the answer in a way that makes them look the way they want or think they should be, but it is possible for them to consult with someone else before the interview and so what they will answer will no longer reflect just what they believe and feel.

It likely depends on several factors; and differing constellations of these factors would portend different benefits & risks, perhaps leading to different decisions: population (e.g., adolescents, seniors with cognitive decline, prisoners, etc.), level of sensitivity of the research questions/focus (e.g., sexual risk behavior, career choices), researcher/interviewer’s subject position & relative similarity/difference & power differential with participant, anticipated social desirability bias based on these factors, interviewer skill, to name a few. And to an extent, for a skilled interviewer who can build rapport & maintain a reflexive & nonjudgmental stance, it may matter less to the encounter and the outcomes.

Thank you all for your thoughtful and interesting answers! What strikes me, is that this question is rarely discussed in the research literature, and not in methodology books either. I posted the same question on Twitter and got many interesting answers there as well, but all of them were based on personal beliefs and experiences. The only exception was the reference to this article, which discusses the pros and cons and ends up with the advice to let the participants prepare as much as they can in advance: Van der Maren, J. M. (2010). Notes de chercheurs en méthodologies qualitatives La maquette d’un entretien. Son importance dans le bon déroulement de l’entretien et dans la collecte de données de qualité. Recherches qualitatives, 29(1), 129-139.

Sharing the questions in advance can be a double edged sword!

If in case the depth of the research requires the data to be accurate, then the researcher has to share the objectives as well as the methodology including the intensity of the questions. This will put the respondents at ease as he/she can be confident while responding as he is well aware of the researcher's intention.

Sharing of Questions in advance is much required for a mediocre set of population who may not have the technical literacy to understand the contents of the questionnaire.

However, if the population is a hybrid one, then sharing the questions in advance can lead to biased answers. Most of the times, such hybrid population takes the researcher for granted and there is a possibility of prejudice thus reducing the quality of the research. Moreover the attitude of the respondents in this case may be obstinate because of their esteem position. This usually creates a mental block which acts as a barrier between what the researcher intends to say and what information the audience receives.

As a researcher I have tried and experimented multiple times (most of the times) with the former technique and it has helped me and my research team in enriching the primary data as the respondents are quite aware of what is the focus of the research. However let me also clarify that the audience in this case were not experts and were ready to take inputs from the researcher.

I think it is a good idea to give interview participants the questions in advance aa it will enable them to think more deeply about the questions. In addition, the interviewer can proble participants about how they came to the conclusions they did.

Åsta Haukås,

This largely depends on the type of interview and the interview protocols. I do not recommend this in open interviews, semi-structured interviews, and in-depth interviews. It can also threaten the interaction, the honesty of the participants (truth may replace reality), and so on.

My colleagues and I have done some qualitative research with interview tools. In my opinion, a clear statement of the subject and objectives of the research is better than asking questions in advance.

For certain organizations, it helps them assign the right person to attend with the required authorization to give a certain response.

It depends on what kind of study. Is this market research or a scholarly endeavor. Follow the protocols.