From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews

Abstract

Qualitative interviews are widely used to generate rich insights, yet training often falls short in preparing researchers for the practical realities of fieldwork. While textbooks and journal articles introduce researchers to core concepts and academic standards such as methodological rigor, reflexivity, and ethical research practices, they often do not sufficiently equip early-career scholars with the tools needed to navigate fieldwork challenges. Developed with this critical training gap in mind, this paper aims to demonstrate how early-career scholars from diverse disciplines can prepare for and conduct rigorous stationary and mobile interviews. Illustrated through experiential vignettes from an interdisciplinary authorship team of four graduate students across three qualitative studies in the United States (Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota; Boulder County, Colorado; New York City, New York), we identify challenges encountered and lessons learned during fieldwork. Key cross-cutting themes specific to early-career researchers include administrative and logistical challenges; building trust and emotional engagement with participants and co-researchers; unique positionality as early-career researchers; and researcher well-being and self-care. We call for expanded mentored fieldwork opportunities across higher education and practical, interdisciplinary training in qualitative interviewing. The adaptable data collection and reflexive analytical strategies outlined in this paper and supplementary fieldwork guide aim to support early-career scholars in navigating, personalizing, and enhancing the rigor of qualitative fieldwork.

I pedaled harder as tears streamed down my face and splashed onto the gym floor. Upbeat music couldn’t distract me from my mental exhaustion and bodily toll. I was two weeks into dissertation data collection and completely overwhelmed, overscheduled, and unprepared.

Fast-forward 6 months to when my interviewing skills and knowledge had exploded through trial-and-error fieldwork experiences. I now knew, for example, how to handle a candidate participant failing the cognitive screening assessment, had a protocol for interviewing in buildings with bed bugs, and kept tissues handy for participants’ tearful storytelling. I blocked time for my own physical and mental health to recover from the emotional labor of daily interviewing. But I still encountered unexpected challenges where I felt untrained, such as entering a home with rotting food and hoarded materials or identifying worrying signs of financial elder abuse.

A decade later, these experiences remain vivid. They are a motivation as I endeavor to help my student mentees prepare for their own qualitative fieldwork, and the reason I have wanted to write this manuscript for over ten years. - Vignette written by author JF

Qualitative interviews are widely used to generate rich insights, yet training often falls short in preparing researchers for the practical realities of fieldwork. Textbooks and journal articles provide traditional strategies that guide scholars in qualitative research design, methodological rigor, reflexivity, analytic strategies, and ethical research practices (Charmaz, 2014; Creswell & Poth, 2015; Denzin & Lincoln, 2018; Patton, 2014). While these texts are useful for broad familiarization (Hay & Cope, 2021; Okely, 2020; Taylor et al., 2015; Tolley et al., 2016), they do not sufficiently prepare “qualitative first-timers” for practical challenges in the field (Campbell et al., 2021) such as navigating power dynamics with participants, weighing safety against research goals, or handling unexpected logistical hurdles. Undergraduate and graduate students often participate in course-based fieldwork training activities to learn foundational data collection skills. However, these projects are often singular and short-term (e.g., conduct a 30-minute interview and code the data) and cannot adequately train students to adapt to shifting circumstances in the field (Heller et al., 2011; Jackson, 2021). Hands-on and extended training through research assistantships is another approach to introduce fieldwork (Landrum & Nelsen, 2002). However, these experiences are not always possible or feasible, particularly for time-sensitive studies, projects with limited funding, and departments with heavy teaching requirements (Schoon, 2023). Moreover, graduate curricula and research training programs often assume that practical skills will be learned informally through mentorship or trial and error, leaving an enduring gap in structured preparation.

Despite these challenges, social scientists across disciplines seek to prepare trainees through methods tailored to their fields. Social workers, for example, have compiled strategies to explore the impact of differences in researcher-participant positionality (Campbell et al., 2021), while geographers address complex dynamics during mobile, or go-along, interviews (Evans & Jones, 2011; Finlay & Bowman, 2017). Sociologists and anthropologists have curated abundant texts describing ethnographic methodologies (Okely, 2020; Taylor et al., 2015), while public health practitioners adopt co-creation practices such as collaborating with communities and stakeholders to conduct research and design interventions (Agnello et al., 2025; Grindell et al., 2022). These disciplinary-specific qualitative approaches are often siloed in conversation, despite substantial similarities. For example, researchers from a variety of fields utilize mobile interviewing methods to gain firsthand insights into local areas and contexts. Unlike ethnography (e.g., prolonged, repeated immersion in a setting to observe and participate in daily life) (Reeves et al., 2013), mobile interviews involve researchers accompanying participants on time-limited outings (e.g., on foot, bicycle, car, or public transportation) in familiar environments (Carpiano, 2009; Kusenbach, 2003). Researchers across disciplines utilize mobile methodologies to gather richer, more complex meanings of place by centering the perspectives of participants in their everyday environments and allowing participants themselves to set the pace and choose the route toured (Finlay & Bowman, 2017).

To date, there is limited literature that brings together interdisciplinary perspectives—such as the applied orientation of social work, spatial focus of geography, sociological attention to human behavior and social structures, and community health implementation lens associated with public health—to provide practical tools for early-career researchers conducting stationary and mobile interviews in the field (Pérez et al., 2025). This paper responds to that training gap by centering the fieldwork experiences of early-career graduate researchers from various disciplines. Drawing on three distinct qualitative projects across the United States (US), we highlight cross-cutting themes and synthesize lessons learned, challenges encountered, and adaptations made during qualitative fieldwork. Vignettes illustrate how these lessons unfold in practice by providing concrete, real-world examples rarely captured in traditional methodological texts. Beyond reflection, these insights are translated into a practical Getting Started 101 guide included as supplementary material. This guide includes recommendations and templates to help emerging scholars prepare for rigorous, ethical, and responsive fieldwork. This manuscript complements and expands existing conceptual and theoretical guidance to strengthen qualitative methodological training.

Methods

Four graduate student researchers (DAM, MM, GS, and CJS) recruited participants and conducted stationary and mobile interviews for three studies conducted in 2023-2024, under the mentorship and supervision of senior author JF.

Study #1: Marshall Fire Community Health (Colorado, US, May 2023-November 2023)

This study aimed to understand physical, mental, and social health impacts of the Marshall Fire—a wildland-urban interface fire that swept across Boulder County on December 30th, 2021 and destroyed more than 1,000 homes and businesses (Reid et al., 2025). Approximately 18 months following the fire, researchers conducted 44 in-person semi-structured interviews with members of the community whose homes were destroyed (n=20) or damaged (n=24). Recruitment efforts included email invitations to those who had previously participated in a Marshall Fire quantitative survey, physical and digital fliers posted in the community, word-of-mouth communication, and snowball sampling (Sadler et al., 2010). Participants varied in age (18-80 years), level of educational attainment (high school to PhD), and homeownership status. The majority of participants were non-Hispanic White (86%). The research team conducted approximately 90-minute semi-structured interviews in participants’ homes or a nearby public place of participants’ choosing. Participants had the option to partake in a walking or car-based mobile interview immediately before or after the stationary interview to visit important sites they associated with the fire.

Study #2: Neighborhoods and Health at all Ages (Minnesota, US, August 2023-April 2024)

This project investigated which neighborhood amenities and hazards shape cognitive health behaviors (e.g., physical activity, nutritious diet, regular socialization) across adulthood. The research team heavily promoted the study via a social media campaign and recruited 60 adults living across the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area. The sample was diverse across multiple axes of identity including age, race/ethnicity, location, and housing status. Participants were on average 42 years (range: 18-75), and just over half (53%) self-identified as female, 40% male, and 7% non-binary. Racial/ethnic makeup of the sample was majority non-White (82%). The research team conducted in-person stationary interviews with participants in a wide range of public and private locations including parks, apartment meeting rooms, assisted living common areas, coffee shops, kitchens, and living rooms. Additionally, the researchers completed walking or car-based mobile interviews with most participants (n=56) in their respective neighborhoods and communities. For more information, see Finlay et al. (2026).

Study #3: Aging in Community With Dementia Among Older Adults Racialized as Black (New York, US, April-August 2024)

This qualitative pilot study explored how socio-environmental factors impact health and well-being among Black older adults with cognitive impairment or dementia. Eligible participants included community-dwelling adults 60 years and older living in New York City who were racialized as Black, had capacity to consent, were English-speaking, and had self-reported memory loss or dementia. In partnership with two social adult day centers, the researcher facilitated three in-person workshops to promote brain health education and recruit participants. The final sample included 10 participants. The average age of primary respondents was 79 years (range: 60–96). Participants identified as Black (80%), Hispanic Black (10%), and African (10%). Most participants were female (80%) and born outside of the US (60%). The study involved in-person semi-structured stationary interviews, post-interview questions, and a mobile interview where participants guided the researcher on a walk through their neighborhood (e.g., around their home or the social adult day center). For more information, see Scher et al. (2025).

Analytic Strategy

Our analytic process was collaborative and iterative, drawing from qualitative analysis traditions and adapted to examine early-career researcher experiences across three distinct projects (Braun & Clarke, 2021). Each early-career author generated detailed reflections on their fieldwork experiences including notes on challenges, adaptations, and lessons learned. Project-specific fieldnotes, memos, and debriefing conversations with mentors and peers supplemented these reflections. All authors met regularly to share insights and compare experiences across projects. Through discussion and collaborative memoing, the team synthesized accounts into preliminary categories. Authors GS, CJS, and JF then engaged in multiple rounds of refinement to organize the categories into cross-cutting themes that highlighted shared considerations across diverse contexts and disciplines. To illustrate these themes, authors drew on representative vignettes from individual studies to provide concrete examples of challenges encountered and strategies employed in the field. This analytic approach fostered reflexivity regarding our own positionalities (see Supplementary Materials for author positionality statements) and methodological choices while identifying broader lessons to support other early-career scholars in conducting rigorous qualitative fieldwork. These final themes were synthesized and translated into a supplementary practical guide—Getting Started 101: Tips and Tricks for a Successful Fieldwork Experience —to offer accessible guidance for those beginning qualitative fieldwork.

Results

We identified four cross-cutting considerations: 1) administrative and logistical challenges shaping early-career fieldwork; 2) building trust and emotional engagement with participants and co-researchers; 3) unique positionality as early-career researchers; and 4) early-career researcher well-being and self-care. These themes are presented below alongside illustrative vignettes from the three studies.

Administrative and Logistical Challenges Shaping Early-Career Fieldwork

For scholars new to conducting qualitative data collection, the weight of logistical and compliance-related study tasks (e.g., securing approvals from institutional ethics boards, coordinating busy schedules, developing recruitment protocols, and interviewer training) poses significant challenges and underscores the unseen labor associated with fieldwork. Early-career oriented preparation is essential. Unlike more senior scholars who often have established protocols and administrative support, we designed and refined our own processes while simultaneously learning how to balance coursework, teaching, career development, and service obligations. Limited personal prior fieldwork experience made it difficult for us to effectively navigate the range of practical challenges that arose in real time. Developing structured processes across the different phases of the research process became a way to navigate uncertainty and approach interviews with confidence. Strategies identified by our team include submitting ethics board applications well in advance, mapping out a timeline to create project materials, establishing a data storage plan, and budgeting for participant compensation and other study expenses.

Moreover, practical and analytical considerations arose when navigating recruitment strategies, sample-building, and inclusion criteria. We recommend leveraging social media when applicable, distributing electronic interest forms, utilizing plain language on promotional materials, determining a participant communication plan, and setting a schedule for sample-building and interviews. In addition, recruiting a representative sample required time and intentional planning. Choosing where to focus efforts given few resources was important, and learning how to politely and respectfully communicate ineligibility to potential participants took time and practice. Author MM from Study #1 described his experience navigating recruitment for the first time:

Our initial recruitment process resulted in overwhelming interest from a narrow set of demographics: predominantly older and White female homeowners. To address this, we employed purposive sampling and rolling inclusion criteria that we reviewed periodically at research team meetings.

When preparing to enter the field, we found that administrative preparation helped us feel more organized and confident. For example, before interviews, we recommend considering safety plans in tandem with co-interviewers and thinking through route logistics such as how to commute and what to wear. In addition, author MM highlighted the importance of establishing a standardized “folder system” used throughout all interviews. While simple, this consistency helped MM approach initial participant encounters with greater ease and professionalism:

To limit confusion during the interview introduction period, I intentionally ordered the printed materials in the binder to match the chronological timing of interview tasks. I placed a large, highly visible decal of my university’s logo on the outside of a durable accordion folder to help participants identify me.

During the interview, early-career scholars can take steps to manage logistical challenges and collect comprehensive data while engaging thoughtfully with participants. Our team advises providing compensation immediately following consent, carrying a primary and backup recorder, and establishing a goal duration for interviews. In addition, early-career scholars (e.g., undergraduate research assistants, masters, and doctoral students) should be aware that they are often tasked with managing multiple administrative tasks on their own while in the field—a demand that can feel overwhelming at times. Author CJS conducted all interviews for Study #3 by herself as part of a doctoral dissertation exercise. She describes the logistics and challenges of remaining organized as a solo early-career interviewer:

It was challenging at times for me as the sole interviewer to manage and complete all necessary tasks. For example, during the mobile interview, I held the audio recorder while walking and was unable to jot down fieldnotes simultaneously. When the interview was finished, I immediately wrote down all my initial reflections in a post-interview memo, but I may have missed small nuances.

After interviews, we encourage completing fieldnotes and “mobile transcripts” as quickly as possible (templates provided in supplementary Getting Started 101 guide, pages 14-16), promptly uploading interview data, and creating a secure participant demographics spreadsheet. Taken together, progressing from the novice research stage requires not only technical data collection skills but also substantial administrative preparation, much of which remains part of the “hidden curriculum” of qualitative research. Our supplementary fieldwork guide offers accessible and theoretically informed recommendations to help early-career researchers navigate the logistical, relational, and situational challenges that frequently arise during qualitative interviews. In addition, we also developed key questions for early-career scholars to consider when preparing for fieldwork experiences (Supplementary Table 1).

Building Trust and Emotional Engagement With Participants and Co-Researchers

Fostering trust and practicing emotional engagement are critical for early-career scholars, particularly because establishing credibility and rapport can be more challenging when entering a new field or working with vulnerable populations for the first time. We reflected extensively on how thoughtful recruitment with community partners (i.e., local community groups, organizations, and centers) and careful interview preparation, practice, and planning not only supported rigorous, high-quality data collection but also helped cultivate open dialogue with participants. Such practices allowed us to balance empathy with professional boundaries, manage emotional labor, and respond sensitively to participant needs.

These practices extended to our research team members as well. Two of the studies (#1 and #2) employed co-interviewing—a method where two interviewers conduct the same interviews alongside one another. ¹ During Study #1, co-interviewers often consisted of one student (author MM) and one of the faculty principal investigators (including JF). While three interviews during Study #2 were conducted by a student and faculty principal investigator, most interviews were conducted by two students (DAM and GS) co-interviewing together. As early career scholars still finding our footing in the field, we spent time clarifying responsibilities and testing different styles to effectively co-interview alongside one another. As discussed by GS in Study #2:

We needed to learn how to build off of one another organically and establish mutual trust, a process that took time. While one of us took the lead on asking questions, the other was attentive to taking notes on body language, nonverbal cues, and observations of the surrounding environment. After most interviews, we took a few minutes to debrief and share about things we had heard and noticed.

In addition, we focused on fostering trust and building rapport with participants. One strategy involved creating opportunities for direct, transparent interaction with prospective participants in community settings. As an example, Author CJS from Study #3 described facilitating community-engaged workshops at adult day centers to introduce the research team, share information about brain health, and invite open dialogue with attendees:

I partnered with staff at two social adult day centers to facilitate three brain health workshops consisting of several components: introducing myself, my professional background, and what motivated me to conduct the study; engaging in group discussions about ways to improve brain health; sharing information about local resources available for those experiencing brain health challenges; and handing out flyers and a sign-up sheet to participate in the study. Workshop attendees had the opportunity to ask questions about cognitive health and share any personal connections they had with brain health challenges (e.g., either themselves, family members, or friends).

Across studies, we intentionally employed stationary and mobile interviewing methods in spaces familiar to participants. This enabled a reconfiguration of power dynamics inherent in traditional office- or lab-based research settings, and participants appeared more comfortable and openly expressive. GS from Study #2 reflected:

The location of interviews played a fundamental role in building rapport between the interviewer(s) and interviewee(s). Participants chose stationary interview locations (their homes or a public space in their neighborhood) and mobile interview routes. We were almost always in a new place unfamiliar to us with the participant—an individual with whom we had only communicated with prior for scheduling purposes.

Similarly, Study #2 co-interviewer DAM shared the process of building relationships with participants in mobile interviews by shifting her attention to participants’ experiences of their surroundings—a technique that was new for her but complementary to her prior sociology training:

I quickly understood mobile interviewing to share an epistemological framework with ethnography. Both methods center the participant’s thoughts, actions, and feelings in how and what kind of data is collected. Initially, I was entirely focused on the landscapes where participants led us. Gradually, I learned to train my curiosity towards participants’ words, actions, and surroundings.

While engaging thoughtfully and empathetically during recruitment and interviews was critical for rapport building, disseminating study findings with participants and community members further strengthened researcher-participant relationships and enriched data analysis. CJS from Study #3 reflected:

I conducted one participatory analysis session at each recruitment site. This involved sharing de-identified participant quotes with center members on individual worksheets and asking attendees to share their reflections on the selected quotes. The sessions also involved facilitating a group discussion about what the quotes meant to attendees and whether they resonated with the quotes. Enabling community members to be actively involved in the analytic process improved the quality of data interpretation before writing my formal dissertation.

Sharing findings back with communities reinforces a commitment to ethical, reciprocal, and community-engaged research—an essential practice for novice early-career researchers seeking to sustain community connections and potentially identify collaborators for future projects. Additionally, these community relationships can help inform an early-career researcher’s professional identity, area of expertise, and subsequent research opportunities. Notably, while sustained emotional engagement and practicing empathy are critical for relationship-building and data collection, community partner and participant encounters can be mentally taxing and difficult to process (e.g., when a participant shares past traumatic experiences). Sustaining researcher well-being and practicing self-care is critical, particularly for early-career scholars who may be less equipped to cope with emotionally complex interactions during fieldwork (see Early-Career Researcher Well-Being and Self-Care).

Unique Positionality as Early-Career Researchers

Each of us grappled with the significance of researcher identity, insider/outsider status, and relational positioning while in the field. Through guidance and conversations with mentors, we reflected on our positionalities and engaged in reflexivity in order to better understand and contextualize our roles and responsibilities as early-career researchers. Positionality recognizes that an individual’s social position–shaped by intersectional identities such as race, gender, socioeconomic status, disciplinary background, and career stage–influences their beliefs, assumptions and perspectives about the world (see researcher positionality statements in Supplementary Materials). The practice of reflexivity involves critically examining how our own identities, beliefs, and assumptions shaped interactions with participants. While engaging in reflexivity is important at all career stages, it is especially salient for early-career researchers who may have limited prior exposure to sustained critical self-reflection in fieldwork contexts. Researcher CJS from Study #3—a White young adult—commented on her process of engaging in reflexivity while conducting interviews with Black older adults:

My positionality as a White researcher impacted the language I chose when talking with participants about experiences of racial discrimination, and these choices did not always resonate with participants. For example, I noticed that participants had strong negative reactions when I used terms such as “racial tensions” or “discrimination.” Upon reviewing prior literature on aging and experiences of discrimination, I found that other researchers have used phrases such as “unfair treatment” ( Nkimbeng et al., 2022 ) as well as “less courtesy” or “less respect” ( Williams, 1997 ).

As an early-career researcher, CJS consulted the literature and faculty mentors to learn how to navigate these dynamics effectively and responsibly. In practice, she found that participants consistently assumed the role of teacher to guide the conversation and offer insights that positioned the researcher as a learner from the interview onset. This was particularly pronounced in contexts where age, professional experience, or racial identity differed markedly between early-career researcher and participant. She continued:

A few participants described the positive impact of the cross-cultural interview dynamic. One example of this occurred when a participant emphasized the importance of me—a White young researcher and cultural outsider—learning about experiences of Black older adults with memory challenges and sharing the findings with larger audiences.

Another aspect of researcher positionality impacting the interview process was disciplinary training. As early-career researchers trained in social work, geography, sociology, and public health, our respective fields prepared us to provide equitable and evidence-based mental health care (social work), analyze spatial disparities in health and social services (geography), interrogate structural inequalities embedded in institutions and policies (sociology), and evaluate population-level health outcomes, policies, and prevention strategies (public health). However, in the context of the interview, we learned to center our role as researcher—a practice that became more natural as we accrued interview experience. Researcher MM from Study #1 reflected:

I have worked for nearly two decades with the US federal government and military, most recently as an Emergency Management Specialist responding to public health crises. Given my background, I struggled at times to separate my professional experience from my role and responsibilities as a researcher. Over time, I trained myself to focus on asking clarifying questions to better understand participants' experiences, and I established protocols for referral to relevant resources and professionals.

Similarly, CJS in Study #3 expressed:

I am a licensed social worker, and my training prepared me to respond to specific crises (e.g., abuse or mistreatment, housing crises) by providing referrals to appropriate services. During research encounters, I tried to communicate clearly with participants that I could not provide clinical care or consultation. This became particularly challenging when one participant asked me multiple times throughout the interview to help find alternative housing options. After the interview was over, I spoke with a staff member at the center who was already working on connecting the participant to services and shared additional resources that might be helpful.

Lastly, a few of us discussed how our positionalities as young, female researchers entering unfamiliar spaces (e.g., participants’ homes) sometimes brought on feelings of discomfort around safety. In addition, being early-career researchers with limited field experience made processing emotionally taxing interviews difficult to manage at times. To address this, researcher GS reflected on the importance of mutual peer support with co-interviewer DAM during Study #2 fieldwork:

Because our participants, their homes, public spaces, and even some neighborhoods were previously unknown to us, DAM and I established safety plans and practices such as a set of shared cues to communicate any feelings of unease or discomfort. When interviews became emotionally challenging, we took extra time to debrief as co-interviewers.

These experiences highlight how identity, experience, and professional positioning influence fieldwork dynamics and encounters specifically for early-career researchers. We often occupied simultaneous roles of being both a student learning from participants, as well as a professional expert from whom participants sought expertise.

Early-Career Researcher Well-Being and Self-Care

Prioritizing well-being is especially important for early-career scholars who often have limited experience navigating complex field dynamics or engaging with participants with histories of trauma and/or from historically marginalized communities. Across all studies, we learned that attending to researcher well-being while conducting fieldwork requires proactive planning, preparation, and clear boundary-setting. As an example, early-career researchers can promote self-care and mitigate risk of burnout by creating an interview schedule that balances professional and personal responsibilities. Co-interviewers DAM and GS reflected:

As research assistants, we were tasked with interviewing 60 participants while managing full course loads, additional assistantships, and personal commitments. This led to us initially scheduling three to six interviews per week, falling behind on fieldnotes, and eventually realizing that we needed to craft a new scheduling strategy that suited our early-career skills and availability. We decided to establish a goal of two interviews per week, recognizing that we needed to build in more time for notetaking, preliminary analysis, and administrative tasks.

Open communication amongst study teams was essential, especially for students working with faculty leads. Our teams set weekly limits on interviews, built in buffer days for fieldnotes and discussion, avoided back-to-back interview days that limited recovery time, and ensured that faculty leads were aware when assigned tasks became overly burdensome or exceeded the limits of our weekly hours. We also prioritized classes, research assistant responsibilities, and other obligations first. Importantly, scheduling included time for rest, exercise, and other self-care practices to sustain energy and well-being throughout the project. Self-care also involved boundary-setting and mental health support, especially since participants across all three studies shared openly about distressing experiences. For MM in Study #1 on the Marshall Fire:

Several of the participants evacuated their homes on short notice, feared for their lives, and spent a long period of time without knowing the condition of their homes. Many participants cried during the interviews as they processed traumatic memories. It was challenging to find the balance between being an empathetic researcher while protecting my own well-being. Despite numerous graduate courses in qualitative research methods, I did not feel fully prepared for the emotional toll often associated with interviewing.

MM relied on mentors for support and guidance to manage emotionally challenging fieldwork experiences. He recounted a particularly stressful moment in the field:

I experienced the most acute stress when a participant called me in extreme distress. I listened to the participant and recommended available community resources, all while trying to understand my ethical obligations and limitations as an academic researcher. Immediately afterwards, I called the faculty PI to discuss and also set up a meeting with my primary advisor to help navigate the situation.

Alongside faculty support, MM maintained regular talk therapy, which provided an important space to navigate broader life circumstances beyond the challenges of fieldwork.

Discussion

The development of rigorously executed qualitative research is described in existing publications across disciplines (e.g., Braun & Clarke, 2021; Esterberg, 2002; Hay & Cope, 2021; Tolley et al., 2016). However, these texts are often field-specific and lack practical advice and guidance for early-career scholars navigating technical, procedural, and relationship dynamics (to self, participants, co-researchers, and faculty PI’s) while in the field (Karcher et al., 2024; Pérez et al., 2025). Bridging insights across three studies, this paper presents challenges encountered and lessons learned while conducting in-person stationary and mobile interviews as interdisciplinary, graduate-level researchers. With a focus on early-career scholars, we draw on perspectives from social work, geography, public health, and sociology to prepare researchers for the interdisciplinary and collaborative fieldwork increasingly required to address complex social and health issues (Trussell et al., 2017).

Historically, most early-career specific literature focused on theoretical familiarization and singular elements of the research process (e.g., recruitment, data collection). While important, this body of scholarly literature lacks practical and implementation-focused advice for early-career researchers preparing to conduct stationary and mobile interviews in the field. This paper contributes comprehensive, detailed, and student-centered logistical and administrative guidance. Findings complement and extend existing insights on multilayered relationships during early-career field work experiences by focusing specifically on establishing trust and relationship building (e.g., with self, participants, co-interviewers, and mentors); researcher positionality and reflexivity; and researcher self-care (Baines, 2017; Burawoy, 1998; Israel et al., 1998; Karcher et al., 2024; Massey, 1994).

Establishing Trust and Relationship Building

We prioritized relationship building with participants starting at recruitment where studies engaged participants through social media, flyers, and in-person workshops. Prior literature indicates that strong researcher-community rapport is essential to produce rich insights (Ahmed, 2024; Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Frerichs et al., 2017; Schmid et al., 2024). For example, in Study #3, educational workshops on brain health were hosted at social adult day centers, an approach made possible through relationship building with center staff. These staff members subsequently brokered introductions to prospective participants, reflecting prior literature emphasizing the importance of partnerships with culturally aligned community organizations that can facilitate trust and provide warm hand-offs to participants (Alvarez et al., 2006; Sankaré et al., 2015). In addition, early-career focused studies have highlighted the importance of navigating relationship ethics (Jackson, 2021) and practicing cultural sensitivity (Mabweazara et al., 2025) in every participant encounter. For early-career researchers, cultivating these relationships not only enhances participant engagement but also provides formative training in relational and emotional labor, including skills in trust-building (Wolgemuth et al., 2015) and reflexivity that will shape long-term research trajectories. Consistent with prior literature, all three of our studies emphasized empathetic engagement as a throughline across the research process from data collection (Lochmiller, 2023), to analysis (Stige et al., 2025), and dissemination of findings (Gair, 2012).

Conducting interviews with an empathetic mindset encourages researchers to attend closely to participants’ verbal and nonverbal cues, while creating space for participants to process their thoughts, feelings, and actions openly and without judgement (Stige et al., 2025). Practicing empathy in qualitative research can be time-intensive, emotionally taxing, and may lead to role confusion, particularly for early-career, clinician-researchers who navigate dual roles as both providers and investigators (see Hay-Smith et al., 2016; Heller et al., 2011; Jack, 2008 for more in-depth discussion on navigating role conflict). However, intentional empathetic practice can transform the research encounter by situating researchers alongside participants in narrating lived experiences (D’Cruz et al., 2020), therefore deepening early-career scholars’ understanding of the ethical and interpersonal dimensions of fieldwork.

In addition to research-participant relational dynamics, managing the distinct roles of early-career co-interviewers was central to capturing robust data. To date, few studies have evaluated the merits of co-interviewing—interview scenarios where two interviewers collaboratively conduct the same interview together (Velardo & Elliott, 2021). Prior research on co-interviewing has evaluated the approach via online environments (Verjee & Sticher, 2024), explored gendered and cultural dynamics (Redman-MacLaren et al., 2014), and commented on the potential benefits and drawbacks of co-interviewing with families (Rosenblatt, 2012). As early career researchers, co-interviewing required “tinkering”—an iterative process that “involve[s] trying out interviewing strategies, reflecting on the actions and possibilities that emerge from trying out, modulating our interventions, ascertaining if, when, and how to improvise, and attuning to what participants need” (Monforte & Úbeda-Colomer, 2021, p. 3). Co-interviewing was particularly instructive for our early-career research teams as it provided opportunities to refine interview techniques, strengthen rapport between co-interviewers, and reinforce methodological rigor. Our experiences validate prior findings that effective co-interviewing, also referred to as two-to-one interviewing (Monforte & Úbeda-Colomer, 2021), can improve the quality of data collection (Velardo & Elliott, 2021). We also highlight how co-interviewing can serve as an important form of peer mentorship by creating collaborative spaces for early-career researchers to learn from one another, in addition to guidance provided by more senior mentors.

Early-career scholars can benefit from cultivating relationships with trusted mentors who support the practice of rigorous qualitative fieldwork. As an example, our early-career authorship team sought out mentorship in interview training that fostered collaborative learning while ensuring robust data collection. This mentorship created critical opportunities to develop confidence (Hemmings, 2012), refine interviewing techniques (Pfeifer & Dolan, 2023), and navigate the practical challenges of fieldwork such as limited funding (Fiolet et al., 2026; Laudel & Gläser, 2008). Mentees can benefit from adopting a “mentoring up” framework that empowers them to proactively identify their needs and work with their mentors (Manuel & Poorsattar, 2021; Sancheznieto et al., 2024). Furthermore, early-career scholars must address power dynamics with mentors by negotiating deadlines, establishing boundaries that balance professional and personal responsibilities, and clarifying workload expectations (Keller et al., 2014).

Researcher Positionality and Reflexivity

Across our studies, we practiced reflexivity (Braun & Clarke, 2021) to explore our positionalities throughout all stages of data collection and analysis by considering “our social location, personal experience, and theoretical viewpoint, the relational and institutional contexts of the research, and the bearing of these elements on the research process itself” (Seedat et al., 2015, p. 16). Guided by feminist and critical geographic scholarship, we viewed the co-production of knowledge and influence of researcher positionality in an ontological–epistemological framework that conceptualizes fieldwork as an intersubjective encounter (Haraway, 1988; Rose, 1997). We took reflexive accountability for the ways in which our social locations, emotions, and belief systems actively participate in the production of meaning (England, 1994; Katz, 1994; Sundberg, 2014).

While several frameworks guide researchers to think about integrating reflexivity into their work (Holmes, 2020), early-career researchers may face challenges applying them as they develop methodological expertise and professional identity. For this reason, frameworks that explicitly evaluate the distinct role of “self” in research settings can be instructive at this stage. For example, Milner’s (2007) framework encourages researchers to think about researching the self (e.g., what is my racial and cultural heritage?), researching the self in relation to others (e.g., in what ways do research participants’ racial and cultural backgrounds influence how they experience the world?), and shifting from self to system (e.g., what is the contextual nature of race, racism, and culture in the study?). Guided by this framework, we acknowledged shared central identities with participants, when identities differed substantially (Browne & Moffett, 2014), and when researchers occupied simultaneous insider/outsider status (i.e., sharing some identities with participants but not all [Bukamal, 2022]). Explicitly naming and acknowledging positionalities through reflexive practice enables early-career researchers to continuously contextualize findings and remain attentive to how researcher-participant dynamics shape the interview conversation (Jadallah, 2025). At the same time, Ferguson (2018) argues that reflexivity has limits given that emotional burden, anxiety, and the intensity of face-to-face interviews can restrict how deeply one can engage reflexivity during real-time encounters.

Our studies purposefully selected research methods designed to help democratize the research process and reduce traditional hierarchies between researchers and participants (Finlay & Bowman, 2017; Parson, 2019). This may be a key priority for early-career scholars less experienced in navigating these power dynamics. Mobile interviews provided a particularly valuable approach to lessen these boundaries by enabling participants to act as guides in their own environments. Wiederhold (2015) discusses the utility of mobile interviews to form connections with participants and better understand their local neighborhoods and places. Mobile interviews position interviewees as tour guides, storytellers, and local experts (Wiederhold, 2015, p. 608), allowing early-career researchers to observe and learn from participants’ perspectives while navigating their own assumptions. While our studies’ modalities included walking and driving, other mobile methods research has explored mobile interviews via running (Bogue Kerr, 2025), biking (McIlvenny, 2013), bussing (Fletcher, 2024), and ferry (Vannini, 2011). The diversity of mobile methods enables early-career researchers to observe and learn from participants in situ (Kusenbach, 2003). Further, mobile interviews provide early-career scholars with a more informal, embodied and emplaced (Finlay, 2021) method of collecting data as compared to stationary interviews. The heightened level of participant leadership and involvement associated with mobile interviews can reduce stress for early-career scholars who may feel uncertain guiding conversations in the field. While democratizing the research process through mobile methods offered important benefits (e.g., building trust with participants), conducting interviews in participants’ homes or unfamiliar settings introduced safety concerns for some of us as young, mostly female, early-career researchers. We were keenly aware of the unpredictability of environments and potential risks of vulnerability. Prior work has similarly documented unique challenges related to physical safety and managing the emotional labor of field work, especially among early-career, female researchers (Chiswell & Wheeler, 2016; Hamylton et al., 2023; McAuliffe et al., 2022).

In addition, our methods were intentionally designed to recruit participants from minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds. These populations may be harder to reach due to factors such as disproportionate structural barriers to participation (e.g., time, transportation, childcare) and fewer established recruitment channels (Bonevski et al., 2014). Prior studies that guided our approaches highlight the importance of employing diverse recruitment methods (Bonisteel et al., 2021; Namageyo-Funa et al., 2014; Negrin et al., 2022), practicing purposive sampling (Campbell et al., 2020; Coyne, 1997; Luborsky & Rubinstein, 1995; Marshall, 1996), and implementing strategies to support more inclusive engagement (Dilworth-Anderson, 2011; O’Brien et al., 2022; Parker et al., 2022). These methodological choices demonstrate how early-career scholars can move beyond simply “collecting data” to implementing equity-oriented, reflexive practices that center participant expertise.

In addition, cultural differences between researchers and participants sometimes influenced the research encounter, particularly when specific language choices did not resonate with participants. Research on culturally competent qualitative methods highlights that both language and researcher positionality shape interview interactions, and certain terms can alienate participants if they do not align with their lived experiences (Li and Miao, 2025; Shivji et al., 2022). Such studies emphasize the importance of attending to interpretive nuances and adapting language to participants’ contexts, rather than imposing outsider or Western conceptual frameworks (McDonald et al., 2025).

Researcher Well-Being and Self-Care

Another critical dimension of early-career fieldwork involves researcher well-being and self-care. Qualitative research often involves sensitive contexts that may expose researchers to secondary trauma, compassion fatigue, and even physical safety risks (Dickson-Swift et al., 2008). Ambient danger refers to risks inherent to conducting research in unsafe environments, while situational danger occurs when a researcher’s behavior triggers a participant to respond aggressively (Lee, 1995). Eaves and Kahn (2000) applied the term ‘perceived danger’ to capture the researcher’s continuous internal processing and interpretation of risks encountered. More recent literature has explored how specific researcher positionalities shape experiences of safety in the field (Chiswell & Wheeler, 2016); how to maintain researcher safety amid tense political polarization (DeGroot & Carmack, 2020); and how to prepare researchers to be adaptive amid uncertainty (Morgan & Pink, 2018).

Across our studies, researchers at times experienced an elevated level of uncertainty as participants determined the exact location of the stationary interview and mobile interview route—an intentional choice designed to maximize participant comfort (Mabweazara et al., 2025). While none of us felt threatened by our participants, we felt more vulnerable to potential danger as early-career scholars given our lack of familiarity with the geographical areas and limited prior fieldwork experience. Other researchers have documented dangerous situations that have occurred while conducting fieldwork such as gun violence and unwanted sexual advances (Paterson et al., 1999). As such, informed by prior studies that call for risk management planning among junior researchers (Bloor et al., 2010), our teams employed safety strategies such as regular supervisory training, enabling remote location tracking, positioning co-interview pairs strategically during interviews, developing nonverbal cues with co-interviewers to signal discomfort, and debriefing after interviews. Mobile interviews pose unique considerations for interviewer and participant safety (Adekoya & Guse, 2020), the impact of participants’ health challenges on the interview process (Croff et al., 2024; Lőrinc et al., 2022), confidentiality (Finlay & Bowman, 2017), and sensitivity to participants’ negative emotions triggered by environmental stimuli (Carder et al., 2023). Moreover, car-based mobile interviews involve additional methodological and ethical complexities, including how the confined and mobile nature of the vehicle can heighten or minimize safety risks and potentially enhance accessibility of mobile methods (Liu et al., 2025; Savard et al., 2026).

When facing safety concerns in the field, researcher self-care—actions taken to protect one’s physical and psychological well-being when engaging in demanding work (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018)—is especially critical for early-career scholars. Novice researchers may face an increased risk of secondary trauma due to limited prior exposure to qualitative research (Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018; Mabweazara et al., 2025). Recommended self-care practices include establishing separation between personal and research life, keeping reflexive journals, communicating with supervisors to set manageable workload expectations (Clark & Sousa, 2018; Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018; McAlpine et al., 2018; Rager, 2005; Wray et al., 2007), and participating in self-exploration and reflection via psychotherapy (Andersen & Ivarsson, 2016; Bogue Kerr, 2025; Coles et al., 2014; Kumar & Cavallaro, 2018). Additionally, the literature emphasizes the importance of faculty mentorship and institutional safeguards to protect the physical and psychosocial health of early-career scholars (e.g., Boeren et al., 2015; Fiolet et al., 2026; Pfeifer & Dolan, 2023; Schriever & Grainger, 2019). Researchers in the current study connected with faculty members for support during intense data collection periods. However, scholars also caution that self-care has limits, given that the intensity of fieldwork can constrain the time and space available for self-care, and structural change within academic institutions is necessary to sustain researcher well-being beyond individual strategies (Fiolet et al., 2026). Institutions can better support early career researchers by building in protected recovery time after intensive field work experiences; providing access to trauma-informed supervision or debriefing spaces; adjusting productivity expectations to account for the emotional labor of fieldwork; offering flexible timelines and bridge funding when field conditions shift; and training mentors to actively monitor and support researcher well-being alongside the research progress.

Limitations

All studies utilized in-person semi-structured stationary and mobile interviews, which may limit the transferability of our findings to other qualitative approaches such as online interviews (e.g., via Zoom [Archibald et al., 2019; Howlett, 2022]), focus groups, and ethnography). Since this study represents the specific sociocultural context of three regions in the US, our findings may not be generalizable to fieldwork contexts in other countries with differing ethical protocols, travel costs, and language barriers (Pérez et al., 2025; Sultana, 2007). While our team reflects multiple disciplines, future work should broaden to include additional perspectives within and beyond the social sciences to enhance the applicability and relevance of lessons learned. We position these limitations as directions for future research and as opportunities to strengthen interdisciplinary dialogue on qualitative fieldwork practices among early-career scholars, mentors, and research administrators.

Conclusion

This paper aims to inform education, research, and academic institutional policy related to early-career research training, methodological advancement, and robust qualitative data collection. A key strength of this study is its use of three interdisciplinary case studies to highlight common struggles among early-career qualitative researchers new to fieldwork. We collectively assert that robust and scaffolded training in qualitative interviewing, both in classroom settings and through mentored field experiences, is necessary. Further, interdisciplinary collaboration should be reflected in methodological training and fieldwork preparation (e.g., through co-teaching, co-mentorship, and joint manuscript writing across disciplines).

Expanding opportunities to conduct mentored fieldwork at all levels of higher education can meaningfully strengthen training in qualitative data collection, elevate the rigor of student contributions in research, and advance scientific knowledge. In particular, hands-on undergraduate opportunities may support future learning and professional development (e.g., in discerning whether to apply to graduate programs or pursue a career in research). Although many academic departments offer standard qualitative methodological courses, sustained mentorship and tailored supervision are not always available or prioritized. While qualitative classes should continue to be grounded in rich theoretical framing and practical techniques, they also must include discussions on unexpected challenges and mitigation strategies during data collection. This paper aims to inform these critical discussions and enhance early-fieldwork success by presenting on-the-ground considerations for scholars and mentors. By providing multidisciplinary firsthand accounts of navigating fieldwork challenges, this manuscript offers practical tools to strengthen qualitative inquiry, improve training, and support the production of robust, meaningful research.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews

Supplemental material for From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews by Grace M. Savard, Clara J. Scher, Desiree L. Alvarez-McNelis, Matthew R. Miller and Jessica M. Finlay in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews

Supplemental material for From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews by Grace M. Savard, Clara J. Scher, Desiree L. Alvarez-McNelis, Matthew R. Miller and Jessica M. Finlay in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material - From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews

Supplemental material for From Novice to Expert: Interdisciplinary Early-Career Perspectives on Conducting Qualitative Stationary and Mobile Interviews by Grace M. Savard, Clara J. Scher, Desiree L. Alvarez-McNelis, Matthew R. Miller and Jessica M. Finlay in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.