How to Talk to Strangers
A conversation with the Steve Portigal
Steve is an expert at in-person user research interviews. He runs Portigal Consulting, is a regular conference speaker, and author of the book Interviewing Users: How to Uncover Compelling Insights.
Who wins at running interviews, introverts or extroverts?
I think it’s worth reminding ourselves that introversion and extroversion each describe where we default, it doesn’t define what we are and aren’t capable of. Extroverts can hold back and mirror the other person’s tone; introverts can bring passion and enthusiasm to their interactions (as examples). It just may take more energy than following our own preferred ways of being. But interviewing isn’t hanging out and chatting, it’s a very intentional way of interacting. It should take energy and focus. Ultimately, vive la différence!
“Most research I do isn’t really about filling in the predefined boxes with answers but trying to figure out the overall space of the issue.”
Hear about upcoming conversations:
How do you keep your mind on the overall goals of an interview and avoid rabbit holes?
When you walk a dog, over time you figure out how loose or tight the leash should be, depending on how the dog is acting and what the overall situation is. I’m sure there’s a better horse analogy (free rein?) but I’m not qualified. Anyway, it becomes a bit of muscle memory in interviews. It’s always going to depend on the objective of the interview, but most research I do isn’t really about filling in the predefined boxes with answers but trying to figure out the overall space of the issue. I am trying to understand that person’s story, work, mindset, approach, experience, and that does mean following their lead, or looking for clues, etc. So looking at how you framed the question here, I guess I see those “rabbit holes” as actually aligned with the goals of the interview.
What is your approach for discussing sensitive topics?
I can think of plenty of times where participants opened the door to an off-topic sensitive area (say, repeated, thinly-veiled references to being frustrated with a spouse) and I just left it alone, because it wasn’t germane to our focus. In general, It’s worth being clear with ourselves whether a topic might be uncomfortable for us or for our participants and not conflating the two. So I think there’s a combination of sensitivity for either party, and relevance that informs how if or how I proceed.
“It’s worth being clear with ourselves whether a topic might be uncomfortable for us or for our participants and not conflating the two.”
When we’re talking about sensitive topics, I’ll generally be neutral (maybe using body language to indicate I’m listening rather than an exclamation like “oh no!” that indicates I have my own emotions about what they’ve shared). My follow-ups may be neutral and direct (“What did you decide to do then?”) if I perceive my participant as comfortable, but if I’m going to be more cautious I can ask a projective question, where the question isn’t about them, but some other group of people.
Q: How have you seen other people in the community deal with that situation?
A: Well, when it happened to me, I decided to…
Making the question less direct sometimes prompts a response about them, but those cases, it was their choice to talk about themselves specifically rather than more broadly about other people.
What are your favorite methods for analyzing your transcripts post-interview?
I’m so glad to see that we’re analyzing! And that we’re looking at transcripts and just the notes from debriefs. Briefly, my approach is to
Go through all the transcripts and capture all the interesting elements (e.g., statements, behaviors) without stressing too much about what interesting means.
I am mostly focused on just capturing those elements, if I’m in a document I might add a comment that summarizes why I’m flagging it in just a few words
I try to hold off on interpretation but the further I get through a stack of transcripts, the more I can’t help myself from making note of patterns or of connections between elements I’ve noted here versus elsewhere
I’ll set up a “parking lot” for patterns and one for solutions; whether that’s separate notation as I’m going through or literally creating another document or space in a document to write that stuff down
If I’m fortunate enough to have a collaborator for this process (the rule in the olden times; the exception now) then we’ll have divided this task up and then meet together to discuss and further clarify each of these items, and then cluster them, give them better titles, add an explanation as to just what this pile of individual observations means overall.
How do you keep conversations from becoming personal?
It does depend somewhat on the topic and the relationship you or your organization has with your research participant (and their organization) but these interviews should get personal. This question implies there’s a level of personal that’s too personal, though. A sub-question then, is how to tell when things are too personal (and then the original question, how to prevent or correct from that)?
The key for me is relevance. If I ask about someone’s music listening and they want to tell me about the tension with their spouse, does that answer add more context to explain their listening behaviors? I might have to ask them to close the loop: “So given that is going on for you, does that change what you’re listening to, or when?” I can think of very few times where someone was just looking to dump their personal issues on me regardless of the relevance to our discussion. In those situations, I am more selective about what I acknowledge. Just like when someone wants to enthuse about my client’s products or has a certain idea about what part of the organization we represent, I’ll just ignore those comments and not do the usual nodding and “okaying” but instead ask more about what I want to talk about and respond more specifically the kinds of responses I’m interested in.
“Research is an experience, and so much of that experience is eliminated when we conduct interviews remotely.”
What is your take on remote interviewing?
I’m so grateful we’ve had a safe way to do our work for the past few years. I know before the onset of the pandemic, it was the norm for many organizations, but I hope that as a field we can get back to more face-to-face user research. One aspect of remote interviewing that is really compelling is the opportunity to include people from less populated areas, or have a sample that is not geographically concentrated, and so maybe we can include that while still giving researchers and teammates the important opportunity to literally get out of their comfort zone and see the world more fully. Research is an experience, and so much of that experience is eliminated when we conduct interviews remotely. The in-person interview experience changes how I connect and learn from participants and what kind of new perspectives I bring back, and we badly need to hold onto that.
What is the most challenging aspect of interviewing for a novice?
It takes practice to prep questions beforehand but then in the interview, find that balance between asking your questions and following the lead of the information that emerges in the interview itself.
To read more from Steve Portigal, visit portigal.com.