Getting a great client-moderator match is always tricky in any kind of qualitative research. That’s why, when those matches work, they often turn into long-term partnerships.
In qualitative research, the moderator (or interviewer, or facilitator—take your pick) is the one actually collecting the data, right on the front lines. They’re the human heart and mind of the research—and they bring a wide range of interviewing skills and specialties. Contrary to common belief, finding a given project’s best moderator is most certainly not a one-size-fits-all situation:
- Moderator style—and applied knowledge of known research interviewing best practices—varies widley (and wildly!).
- Project needs also vary widely—with extreme variations in client preferences and research application needs.
There is no one-size-fits-all when it comes to aligning a client’s needs with moderator skills. So, how do we get right to the crux of the matter to achieve this alignment?
How Interview Style Variations Determine Moderator Fit in IDIs
Before any “match-making” begins, we need a precise conversation about the project’s ideal interviewer—what type of interviewer will be the best fit? At the highest level, there are two types. And nope, I’m not talking about B2B vs B2C. What I’m talking about here (and yes, this is oversimplified) is highly-structured versus semi-structured interviewing.
Highly-Structured IDIs
In these cases, the interview guide is highly structured and intended to be followed (nearly) like a script. The interview can feel like a verbal survey, with little time for clarifying and probing. The moderator may have 40+ questions to cover in a 60-minute session.
These interviews require:
- Tight adherence to the guide
- Minimal deviation
- Judicious, strategic probing only when essential
Moderators here must excel at clarifying, staying on track, and maintaining consistency across interviews. This style is common in product concept testing, early-stage message testing, and similar research where multiple preliminary hypotheses need to be explored systematically.
Semi-Structured (Depth-Seeking) IDIs
These interviews often have higher-level objectives—less about tackling breadth and more about depth in one or two key areas of discovery. In these cases, the discussion guides often have 10-20 questions for a 60-minute duration—including warm-ups designed to establish trust and rapport early on.
These interviews require:
- Candid, deep responses about opinions, behaviors, attitudes, emotions, and values
- Time and flexibility to clarify and probe
- Time for evidence-backed techniques that sidestep known biases like social desirability or over-rationalization
Moderators highly skilled in semi-structured interviewing are uncommon. They know how to probe for depth and can uncover insights tied to System 1 thinking—the emotional, gut-based, and sometimes subconscious factors that market researchers know are often at play. They know how to read the participant and have excellent judgement about when to probe more—and when to stop. And they have strong factual knowledge about the many known qualitative research techniques used to reach this level of depth.
Why Matching Matters—And What Happens When We Don’t Get It Right
When I see mismatches between clients and interviewers, it is almost always due to this style mismatch. And it means unhappiness for all; the mismatched client is not getting the experience they want, and the interviewer feels set up for failure. Instead, we need clarity and precision about what type of interview is needed for a given project.
Some moderators are excellent at executing structured interview guides with rigor—and do best with highly structured interviews. Others thrive in the open, exploratory rhythm of depth-seeking work—and do their best work in semi-structured (or even unstructured) interviews.
Neither style is “better”—but a mismatch can derail a project’s potential. And when misalignments happen, in my experience, it’s almost always because this distinction wasn’t discussed.
So let’s be candid: Clients and moderators alike should agree—clearly and precisely—on the style of interview being planned and the skills it demands. In this discussion, ask questions like these to determine if the project at hand will be highly or semi-structured:
- What’s the primary need—breadth (collecting a lot of information/asking a lot of questions) or depth (exploring one or two topics deeply/having time for probing and projective techniques)?
- Do we want consistent, standardized execution—or deep discovery that gets beyond superficial answers?
- Is this topic where less rational (System 1) thinking is important to explore, and the interviewer will be given adequate time to facilitate accordingly?
These questions will help us to have the necessary conversation about fundamentally different project types that require different talents. Highly-structured and semi-structured IDIs aren’t interchangeable, and neither are the moderators who excel at them (the moderator who truly excels at both is very rare). When we acknowledge that upfront, we save time, avoid frustration, and give both clients and moderators the conditions they need to succeed.
