Introduction: Expert Interviews — An Introduction to a New Methodological Debate

Part of the Research Methods Series book series (REMES)


Before we go any further, we would like to begin by providing the reader with a step-by-step introduction to the methodological debate surrounding expert interviews. In doing so, we will start with a brief discussion of the generally accepted advantages and risks of expert interviews in research practice (1). We will follow this by outlining current trends in the sociological debate regarding experts and expertise, since expert interviews are — at least on the surface — defined by their object, namely the expert (2). We will then conclude with a look at the current methodological debate regarding expert interviews, an overview of the layout and structure of this book, as well as summaries of the 12 articles it contains (3).


Expert Knowledge Expert Interview Methodological Debate Data Gathering Process Actual Research Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. (London: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  2. Bogner, A. (2005) “How Experts Draw Boundaries. Dealing with Non-Knowledge and Uncertainty in Prenatal Testing” in Science, Technology and Innovation Studies 1, pp. 17–37, <–01/bogner.htm/>Google Scholar
  3. Bogner, A., Torgersen, H. (eds) (2005) Wozu Experten? Ambivalenzen der Beziehung von Wissenschaft und Politik. (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften).Google Scholar
  4. Collins, H. M., Evans, R. (2002) “The Third Wave of Science Studies: Studies of Expertise and Experience” in Social Studies of Science 32, pp. 235–96.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, H. M., Evans, R. (2007) Rethinking Expertise (Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Flick, U. (2006) Introduction to Qualitative Research, 3rd edn (London: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  7. Flick, U., Kardorff, E. von and Steinke, I. (eds) (2004) A Companion to Qualitative Research (London and Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  9. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity — Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Stanford/CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J. C. and Pinch, T. (eds) (1995) Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks/CA: Sage Publications).Google Scholar
  11. Lamnek, S. (2005) Qualitative Sozialforschung: Lehrbuch, 4th edn (Weinheim: Beltz).Google Scholar
  12. Maasen, S. and Weingart, P. (eds) (2005) Democratization of Expertise? Exploring Novel Forms of Scientific Advice in Political Decision-Making (Dordrecht: Springer).Google Scholar
  13. Meuser, M. and Nagel, U. (1991) “ExpertInneninterviews — vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion” in Garz, D. and Kraimer, K. (eds) Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag), pp. 441–71.Google Scholar
  14. Przyborski, A. and Wohlrab-Sahr, M. (2008) Qualitative Sozialforschung. Ein Arbeitsbuch (München: Oldenbourg).Google Scholar
  15. Schmid, J. (1995) “Expertenbefragung und Informationsgespräch in der Parteienforschung: Wie föderalistisch ist die CDU?” in Alemann, U. v. (ed.) Politikwissenschaftliche Methoden. Grundriss für Studium und Forschung (Opladen: estdeutscher Verlag), pp. 293–325.Google Scholar
  16. Turner, S. (2002) “What is the Problem with Experts?” in Social Studies of Science 31, pp. 123–49.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Alexander Bogner, Beate Littig and Wolfgang Menz 2009

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations