In qualitative research, the discussion guide is a written sequence of questions that the moderator uses to collect data. Much like a questionnaire in survey research, the discussion guide ensures that qualitative data is collected in a deliberate and systematic way.
An effective discussion guide is anchored to the documented project objectives. It sequences questions in a logical order to minimize bias, frames probes to elicit candid responses, and incorporates exercises that mitigate risks such as social desirability or acquiescence bias. Constructing such a guide requires precision and a clear connection between each question and the documented project objectives.
Once a discussion guide has been drafted, it is customary for the researcher or research team to conduct an internal review. This step ensures that the questions are properly aligned with the documented project objectives, that the sequencing does not introduce unintended bias, and that the language is appropriate for the target participants. Following this internal review, the draft is circulated to clients, colleagues, or other project stakeholders for feedback and approval. In most projects, this process leads to two or three rounds of modest revisions that improve clarity and flow. On occasion, however, the volume or scope of stakeholder requests expands considerably, resulting in a discussion guide that attempts to cover too many topics. Such overextended guides risk participant fatigue, diluted focus, and weaker data quality.
Practical Options for Bloated Guides
When stakeholder requests create pressure to add more content than the guide can reasonably accommodate, researchers can employ one of three well-established strategies:
- Pre-Survey for Factual Questions
Questions that are factual, demographic, or otherwise survey-like can be collected outside of the qualitative session. For example, participants may complete an online questionnaire prior to the session. This approach preserves in-session time for exploratory, discussion-oriented questions that require probing and follow-up. - Split the Guide Across Versions (Split Sample)
If stakeholders are receptive to the idea, the discussion guide can be divided into two versions. For instance, in a study with 30 in-depth interviews, 15 participants might be interviewed using version A and the other 15 with version B. Core questions remain consistent across both versions, while supplemental questions are distributed strategically. This approach allows for broader coverage of topics without overwhelming individual participants. - Incorporate Online Exercises
When “extra” content is needed another option is to use online tools and exercises. Techniques such as ranking tasks, prioritization exercises, sorting exercises and creative activities capture input quickly and can boost participant engagement, providing a useful balance between qualitative depth and efficient data capture.
Conclusion
Revisions to a discussion guide are a standard part of qualitative research practice and, in most cases, lead to improved data collection instruments. Occasionally, however, the revision process spirals, resulting in a guide that is too long or too broad (thus “bloated”). In these cases, the researcher’s role extends beyond discussion guide design to actively managing clients and stakeholders. By offering options such as pre-surveys, split sample guides, and online exercises, researchers can balance stakeholder requests with methodological rigor. This ensures that the final discussion guide remains a valid and effective instrument for collecting high-quality qualitative data that is directly aligned with the documented project objectives.