Dyadic and Triadic Interviewing Techniques in Qualitative Research: Theoretical Underpinnings and Methodical...

To discuss the dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques as distinct approaches to data collection in qualitative research.

Methodological/methodical discussion.

Underpinned by a layered theoretical basis involving interpretivism, social constructivism and symbolic interactionism, dyadic and triadic interviewing approaches represent a tapestry that seeks to illuminate not only what participants think at the individual level, but also how they think together to generate shared, nuanced meanings. Key methodical considerations include participant recruitment and selection to form the dyads or triads, ethical issues, navigating power dynamics, determining saturation at the dyad or triad level and shifting the unit of analysis from the individual level to the dyad or triad level. Notable challenges to using these approaches include logistical complexity, ethical risks and the great need for skilled moderation.

Dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques occupy a vital methodological niche in qualitative studies, particularly within the contexts of health and social care research where relational dynamics and collaborative decision-making are central. By foregrounding co-constructed narratives and real-time interactions, dyadic and triadic interviewing techniques illuminate the interplay of individual agency, power asymmetries and cultural norms, offering insights that transcend the limitations of individual interviews or focus groups.

The increasing complexity of care, treatment pathways, recovery and family-centered decision making warrants engagement beyond individual interviews. Dyadic and triadic interview techniques facilitate this by combining the in-depth benefit of individual interviews and shared interpretations of focus group discussions to capture meanings and experiences.

This methodological/methodical discussion offers clarity to employing dyadic or triadic interviewing approaches to improve their uptake in health and social care research.

Not applicable.

No patient or public contribution.