Short answer: An expert interview is a qualitative interview with someone chosen for their specialised knowledge of a field, process or organisation, not for their personal experience as a case. To run one well, decide which kind of knowledge you need (technical, process or interpretive), recruit by role, write a short semi-structured guide, prepare thoroughly, and analyse what experts say alongside how they frame it.
Last updated: November 3, 2026
Expert interviews are one of the most used and least taught methods in qualitative research. Policy studies, management research, health services research and market research all rely on them, yet many methods chapters simply say "we interviewed 15 experts" without saying who counted as an expert, why, or what kind of knowledge the interviews were meant to produce. This how-to guide explains how to plan, recruit for, conduct and analyse expert interviews in qualitative research, with a planning template you can copy into a proposal or ethics application.
Key takeaways
- An expert is defined by the research question, not by job title. Someone is an expert because they hold knowledge your study needs, usually through their role.
- Bogner and Menz distinguish three types of expert interview: exploratory, systematizing and theory-generating. Each needs a different guide and a different analysis.
- Experts are busy and often guarded. Preparation, a tight guide and a clear value exchange matter more than in other interviews.
- Expert accounts are interpretations, not neutral facts. Treat them as data to analyse, and triangulate claims you rely on.
- AI-moderated interviews can help with short, focused expert studies, but early evidence shows limits on depth; keep a human in the loop for sensitive or high-stakes elite interviews.
What is an expert interview in qualitative research?
An expert interview is a semi-structured qualitative interview in which the participant is approached as a holder of specialised knowledge about a field of action, such as a policy area, profession, industry or organisation, rather than as a case of personal experience. The analytic interest is in the knowledge the person holds because of their role.
The methodological literature on expert interviews is strongest in German-speaking social science. The key English-language reference is Interviewing Experts (2009), edited by Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig and Wolfgang Menz in the ECPR Research Methods series, which grew out of their 2002 German volume Das Experteninterview (reviewed in FQS, 2004). The editors note that, despite wide use in political and social science, expert interviews had been marginal in international qualitative methods debates.
Expert interviews vs elite interviews
The two overlap but are not the same. Elite interviews target people with power or high social position; expert interviews target people with relevant specialised knowledge. A ward nurse can be an expert on discharge processes without being an elite, and a minister can be an elite without being the best expert on how a policy is implemented. Littig's chapter in the 2009 volume discusses this distinction directly. For elite-specific tactics such as access, status dynamics and time pressure, see Harvey (2011), "Strategies for conducting elite interviews", Qualitative Research 11(4), 431–441.
What are the three types of expert interview?
Bogner and Menz (2009) distinguish expert interviews by what they are meant to produce. Choosing the type first is the single most useful planning decision, because it determines your guide, your sample and your analysis.
| Type | Purpose | Knowledge targeted | Typical guide | Typical analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exploratory | Get an overview of an unfamiliar field, often before the main study | Orientation, who is who, key issues | Loose, few topics | Summary notes, used to sharpen the design |
| Systematizing | Reconstruct explicit, specialised knowledge of a field systematically | Technical and process knowledge ("how does this work?") | Structured topic list, comparable across interviews | Descriptive coding, process maps, framework matrices |
| Theory-generating | Develop theory from experts' interpretations and practices | Interpretive and tacit background knowledge ("why do you see it that way?") | Semi-structured with narrative prompts and probes | Interpretive coding, grounded theory or reflexive thematic analysis |
The distinction between kinds of knowledge matters. Technical and process knowledge is mostly explicit: experts can state it clearly. Interpretive knowledge, meaning experts' views of what matters, what counts as a problem and what is normal, is largely tacit and has to be drawn out. Döringer (2021) in the International Journal of Social Research Methodology proposes the "problem-centred expert interview", combining Bogner and Menz's theory-generating interview with Witzel's problem-centred interview, specifically to reach that implicit knowledge.
How to conduct expert interviews: a step-by-step guide
Step 1: Define what makes someone an expert for your study
Write down the knowledge your research question needs, then work out which roles hold it. Avoid defining experts by seniority alone. A good criterion reads like: "people who have coordinated at least one hospital discharge programme in the last three years", not "senior healthcare professionals".
Step 2: Map the field and sample by role
List the positions involved in the process you are studying, such as regulators, implementers, frontline staff, suppliers and critics, and sample across them. Expert samples are usually purposive, and snowball referrals are common. Snowballing tends to reproduce one network, so deliberately add people outside the first contact's circle. For how many interviews you need, the information power approach is usually a better justification than a fixed number.
Step 3: Prepare more than you would for a lay interview
Experts expect you to know the basics. Read their public work, the organisation's documents and the policy background first. Preparation lets you skip questions they can answer with a link, and it signals competence, which affects how openly experts talk. Note that experts may treat you as a peer, a layperson, a critic or a potential ally; each role shapes what they share.
Step 4: Write a short semi-structured guide
Keep the guide to four to six topic blocks with optional probes. Start with the expert's role and practice, which is easy and builds rapport, then move to processes, then to interpretations and contested issues. For theory-generating interviews, include narrative prompts ("Can you walk me through the last time this went wrong?") because examples surface tacit knowledge better than abstract questions. Our semi-structured interview guide covers the general format.
Step 5: Agree access, consent and attribution up front
Experts often speak for organisations, so anonymity is harder: a role plus a sector can identify someone. Agree in writing whether quotes will be attributed, attributed by role, or fully anonymised, and whether the expert can review quotes before publication. See our guide on informed consent.
Step 6: Conduct the interview
- Respect the time you agreed, usually 30 to 60 minutes.
- Ask for examples and cases, not only general statements.
- Probe "official" answers gently: "Is that how it works in practice?"
- Ask for documents or other contacts at the end, not the start.
Step 7: Analyse knowledge and framing together
For systematizing interviews, code for processes, actors and conditions, and compare across roles in a matrix. For theory-generating interviews, code also for how experts frame the problem and what they take for granted. In both cases, treat expert statements as accounts from a position: check key factual claims against documents or other interviews, and look for negative cases.
Template: Expert Interview Planning Sheet
This Qualitati planning sheet can be copied into a proposal, ethics application or study protocol. Fill in one line per row before recruiting.
| Decision | Your answer | Check |
|---|---|---|
| Interview type | Exploratory / systematizing / theory-generating | Matches the research question |
| Knowledge needed | Technical / process / interpretive | Guide questions target it |
| Expert criterion | Role-based definition in one sentence | Not seniority alone |
| Role map | List of positions to cover | Includes critics and frontline roles |
| Recruitment route | Direct, gatekeeper, snowball | At least two independent entry points |
| Attribution | Named / by role / anonymous | Agreed in writing |
| Mode | In person / video / AI-moderated / async | Fits sensitivity and seniority |
| Analysis approach | Framework matrix / thematic / grounded theory | Fits the interview type |
| Validation | Documents, other interviews, quote review | Key claims triangulated |
Can AI-moderated interviews be used for expert interviews?
For some expert studies, yes, with care. A July 2026 experience report by Gheyi, Albuquerque, Ribeiro and Perkusich (arXiv:2607.14452) used a custom GPT to run short, self-administered voice interviews with software practitioners in two empirical software engineering studies. Of 66 submissions analysed, 92.4% followed the expected synthesis format, 90.9% of respondents reported a positive experience and 89.4% said they would take part again. Respondents also reported generic questions, limited sensitivity to their answers, insufficient depth and privacy concerns, and the authors stress that the study does not show equivalence with human-conducted interviews. They position AI interviewers as a complement for short, focused, low-risk studies with human oversight.
A related line of work adapts the interviewer to the participant's expertise; we covered one such study in expertise-adaptive AI interviewers. Our reading: AI moderation fits systematizing expert interviews, where you need comparable process knowledge from many practitioners across time zones, better than theory-generating or elite interviews, where rapport, status and follow-up on subtle cues carry more weight.
Where Qualitati fits
Qualitati is a European, budget-friendly qualitative research platform for universities and research companies. For expert interview studies it offers:
- AI-moderated interviews in text and voice, through a shareable link, so experts can take part asynchronously at a time that suits them.
- Active Listener mode for interviews you run yourself, with real-time prompts and section tracking against your guide, which suits senior or sensitive expert interviews where a human should lead.
- Multilingual interviews in 10 languages, useful for cross-national expert panels.
- ThemeLens and QDA Workspace for thematic analysis and inductive or deductive coding of the transcripts, with quotes linked to participants.
Pricing is published, and the free tier includes 30 monthly credits with no credit card. See pricing or compare Qualitati vs NVivo for the analysis side.
Limitations and methodological concerns
- Expert bias. Experts speak from a position and may defend their organisation. Treat accounts as perspectives, and triangulate.
- Closed networks. Snowball samples can reproduce one professional circle and its consensus.
- Identifiability. Small fields make anonymity hard. Role-based descriptions can still identify people.
- Over-structuring. A rigid guide gets the official version. Leave room for examples and disagreement.
- AI depth limits. Early evidence shows AI interviewers can feel generic to experts. Pilot the guide and review transcripts before scaling.
Human-review note: this guide summarises the cited methodological sources; check your discipline's and ethics board's expectations before finalising a protocol.
Who this is for
PhD students, research labs and research firms planning interviews with professionals, policymakers, practitioners or specialists, and anyone who needs to justify an expert sample in a methods section.
When not to use this approach
If you want to understand people's own lived experience, such as patients rather than clinicians, users rather than product managers, a standard semi-structured or phenomenological interview is a better fit than an expert interview.
FAQ
Who counts as an expert in an expert interview?
Anyone who holds specialised knowledge your research question needs, usually because of their role. Define the criterion before recruiting and report it in your methods section.
How many expert interviews do I need?
There is no fixed number. It depends on how many roles you must cover, how specific your aim is and how rich the interviews are. Justify your number with information power or saturation rather than convention.
Are expert interviews structured or semi-structured?
Usually semi-structured. A topic guide keeps interviews comparable, while open probes let experts give examples and explain their reasoning.
What is the difference between an expert interview and an elite interview?
Expert interviews select people for specialised knowledge; elite interviews select people for power or social position. The groups overlap, but not every expert is an elite or the reverse.
How do I analyse expert interviews?
Match the analysis to the interview type: framework matrices or descriptive coding for systematizing interviews, and interpretive approaches such as thematic analysis or grounded theory for theory-generating ones.
Can I use AI to run expert interviews?
For short, focused, low-risk studies, AI-moderated interviews can work and reduce scheduling burden. For senior, sensitive or theory-generating interviews, a human interviewer, optionally supported by real-time AI prompts, remains the safer choice.
Conclusion
Expert interviews in qualitative research work best when you decide in advance what kind of knowledge you need, define experts by role, prepare thoroughly and analyse expert accounts as positioned interpretations. Use the planning sheet above to make those choices visible in your protocol. To run expert interviews in text or voice, or to code them afterwards, start free with 30 credits or view transparent pricing.