An AI-moderated interview places software in the conversational role a human researcher would otherwise occupy. A real participant answers, and the system decides how to follow up within the study’s instructions. This differs from a fixed questionnaire, where the wording is predetermined, and from synthetic research, where the answers themselves are generated.
The distinction matters because the opportunity and the risk sit in the follow-up. A useful prompt can clarify an experience; an irrelevant or leading prompt can change the account the study collects.
Design the conversation before scaling it
Begin with a clear research objective and a guide that identifies the experiences worth exploring. Specify boundaries as well as topics: what the interviewer should avoid, how far it should probe, and what should happen when the participant cannot answer.
Ballpark’s AI Interviews guidance describes setting a main question, discussion guide, and conversation depth. Those controls help shape a study, but the resulting behaviour still needs to be piloted with realistic answers.
Include brief, ambiguous, contradictory, and off-topic responses in that review. In an illustrative subscription study, “I stopped because it was expensive” could mean the price was unaffordable, the value was unclear, or an unexpected charge damaged trust. Check whether the interviewer explores the distinction without supplying an explanation for the participant to accept.
Choose the format for the audience and subject
Automated interviewing can make participation possible without arranging a live appointment with a researcher. Its suitability still depends on language, accessibility, participant comfort, and the sensitivity or complexity of the conversation.
Some questions benefit from a human who can recognise discomfort, understand specialised context, or change the session responsibly. Moderated testing and live interviewing remain useful options when that judgement is central to the research.
Participants should understand that they are interacting with AI and what will be recorded or processed. Include these arrangements in informed consent, with a clear way to stop or seek help.
Review what was actually asked
Analysis needs the questions as well as the answers. If one participant received repeated prompts about price while another did not, the resulting mentions are not directly comparable as evidence of spontaneous concern.
Inspect transcripts or recordings across completed, short, and unsuccessful sessions. Check for leading language, missed opportunities, repeated questions, and incorrect interpretation. More conversations can broaden the material available, but their number does not establish representativeness or remove the need for careful qualitative analysis. The researcher remains responsible for explaining what the interview process allowed participants to say.