It seems to be reasonably (and surprisingly) common for artist-researchers to include some kind of interviews as part of their approaches. Interviewing – and the analysis of interviews – is a complex process, and certainly not something to be taken lightly. I tend to warn away my PhD students (PaR or otherwise) from using interviews unless they have training and experience in working with them.
This blog post from Pat Thomson is a thoughtful introduction into the complexity of interviews:
How do we record and then analyse the important sensory elements of interviews? What does it mean to leave them out?
Does our desire to find patterns (themes) lead us to skip over important tensions and individual idiosyncrasies? What does it mean to leave them out?
Does the use of particular forms of software accentuate our gaze on broad themes rather than emergent narratives and subtle underpinning metaphors? What does it mean to leave them out?
Do the ways in which we transcribe recordings pay sufficient attention to silences, stumbles, awkwardness, intonations, irony, sarcasm and so on? What does it mean to leave them out?