A note on the general and specific evaluation of narrative interview: for MBA students

A note on the general and specific evaluation of narrative interview: for MBA students (information from perplexity.ai)

My question 1: "What are the general strengths and weaknesses of narrative interview in qualitative research?"

The reply: "Narrative interviews are strong for generating rich, contextualized accounts of lived experience but weaker for standardization, generalization, and fast analysis. They work best when the research aims focus on meaning-making, life stories, and subjectivity rather than measurement or hypothesis testing.​

Key strengths

• Rich, in-depth data: Narrative interviews elicit detailed stories about experiences, emotions, and interpretations, producing “thick” data that capture nuance and complexity. This is valuable for understanding processes, trajectories, and turning points in people’s lives.​

• Participant-centered and humanizing: They foreground participants’ own language, structure, and priorities, giving strong “voice” and highlighting marginalized or under-represented perspectives. This supports person-centred and interpretivist research aims.​

• Holistic and contextual: Because stories are told across time, narrative interviews can link events, contexts, and meanings into a coherent life or case narrative, helping the researcher see how social, cultural, and institutional factors interact in a person’s experience.​

• Flexibility and openness: Compared with highly structured formats, narrative interviews minimize pre-structuring and allow unexpected themes, plotlines, and interpretations to emerge from participants rather than the researcher’s agenda.​

• Suitable for complex or sensitive topics: The story form can feel more natural and less interrogative, which can help participants talk about sensitive, emotionally laden, or complex experiences (e.g. illness, trauma, discrimination) in a way that feels coherent to them.​

Key weaknesses

• Limited generalizability and standardization: Because narrative interviews usually involve small, purposive samples and non-standardized talk, findings cannot easily be generalized statistically or compared systematically across many cases. This can be problematic if the research aims require broad claims or strong cross-case comparability.​

• High subjectivity and interpretive dependence: Narratives are not neutral reports of events; they are selective, interpretive constructions shaped by memory, audience, and cultural narrative resources. Analysis is also interpretive, meaning different researchers may read the same story differently and reliability can be questioned.​

• Time- and resource-intensive: Collecting long life stories and then transcribing, coding, and interpreting them requires substantial time and analytic skill, especially when attending to plot, characters, temporality, and context. This makes large samples difficult.​

• Dependence on interviewer skill: Eliciting an extended, coherent narrative while minimizing leading questions depends heavily on the interviewer’s social and reflexive skills, particularly in the opening phase and in managing follow-up prompts. Variability in interviewer competence can affect the quality and comparability of the data.​

• Ethical and emotional challenges: Narrative interviews often surface highly personal, emotionally charged material; protecting confidentiality, managing distress, and negotiating what can be shared analytically are demanding ethical tasks. There is also a risk of re-traumatization or unintended consequences when re-storying participants’ lives.​

When narrative interviews are most suitable

Narrative interviewing is particularly appropriate when:

• The research questions ask “how” and “why” in relation to lived experience, identity, or life trajectories (e.g. how people make sense of housing precarity over time).​

• The goal is to foreground participants’ meaning-making rather than to test pre-specified variables or produce statistically generalizable findings.​

• The study is located in interpretivist, constructivist, or critical traditions that value subjectivity, voice, and context.​

It is less suitable when the priority is:

• Measuring prevalence or effect sizes,

• Making tightly standardized comparisons across a large sample, or

• Producing quick, low-cost data for program monitoring or descriptive audits."

My question 2: "What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of a 30-minute narrative interview on "the main factors influence frontline employee motivation in the Hong Kong hotel sector" with 5 gen z's interviewees, who are my long-time female friends working in the Hong Kong hotel sector, to be conducted by me (interviewer; male) in a Starbuck Coffee shop in Kowloon Bay, Hong Kong?"

The reply: "Conducting a 30-minute narrative interview with 5 Gen Z female friends working as frontline employees in Hong Kong hotels, at a Starbucks in Kowloon Bay, has specific strengths and weaknesses related to your research topic and context.

Specific strengths

• Familiarity and trust: Interviewing long-time friends may create a comfortable atmosphere that encourages openness and rich storytelling about motivation factors, which could enhance data depth and honesty.​

• Targeted sample: Focusing on Gen Z frontline hotel employees provides a relevant, focused perspective on motivation within that specific demographic and sector, helping to illuminate age- and sector-specific motivation dynamics.​

• Manageable length: Thirty minutes is sufficient to elicit meaningful stories without causing fatigue or loss of focus, especially in a casual setting like Starbucks, which may encourage natural conversation flow.​

• Narrative approach fit: Narratives can capture complex motivational factors, including emotional and contextual elements, as experienced and articulated by participants themselves.​

• Convenient setting: Conducting interviews in a public but comfortable place like Starbucks provides a neutral, accessible environment for participants, possibly reducing formal interview anxiety.​

Specific weaknesses

• Small, non-representative sample: Five female friends limits generalizability and introduces selection bias, and findings may mainly reflect your social circle rather than the broader Gen Z hotel frontline population.​

• Potential bias from relationship: Being friends and male interviewer may affect responses due to social desirability bias or gender dynamic—participants might withhold criticism or frame responses to maintain rapport, affecting data authenticity.​

• Time constraints: Thirty minutes might restrict narrative depth, especially if stories are complex or participants provide shorter accounts, limiting opportunity for detailed probing.​

• Public setting distractions: Starbucks can be noisy or interruptive, risking disrupted concentration or less detailed storytelling compared to a private space.​

• Interviewer influence: Your dual role as researcher and male friend may unintentionally guide or limit narratives, and managing reflexivity and neutrality will be challenging.​

• Homogeneous demographic: All female participants from the same age cohort and social circle restricts diversity of perspectives on motivation factors.​

This setup suits exploratory, in-depth insight into motivational narratives from a specific, accessible group but limits broader applicability and carries risks of bias and constrained narrative richness due to setting, time, and relational factors."

A collection of blog notes on using chatgpt for research purpose.