The interview method holds particular significance in housing research as it enables an in-depth exploration of the demand side of housing. Since housing is a basic need for all people, theoretically all people can be interviewed about it. To ensure a representative and relevant sample, the research design involves the categorization of target groups. This approach targets respondents who possess specific expertise or knowledge relevant to the housing research topic.

Interviews were integral to the three sub-projects within the research workshop. Their utility in housing research, as previously mentioned, is significant. Additionally, the researchers' shared enthusiasm for conducting interviews stemmed partly from their collective experience in an oral history workshop. There, they honed their interviewing skills through various exercises. Moreover, the joy derived from engaging in research through interactive exchanges with others played a crucial role in this preference.

In this setting, conducting interviews with residents was not only vital for gaining a deeper understanding of housing issues and their spatial implications but also unexpectedly fostered a sense of unity within the research group. These conversations with residents revealed themselves as a crucial tool for unraveling the complexities of housing, while simultaneously enhancing the collaborative spirit among the researchers.

The narrative interview, a technique in qualitative social research, grants interviewees substantial freedom to share their personal experiences. This method enables the researcher to retrospectively follow the sequence of events in the interviewee's life, without being constrained by specific, pre-set questions. According to Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr (cf. 2014, S.82), it is suited for unraveling processes rather than static states, attitudes, views, or theories. The interviewee navigates the narrative, marking crucial points through actions like starting, ending, emphasizing, pausing, omitting, or repeating aspects of their story. These nuances are essential and must be meticulously analyzed during the interview evaluation.

In preparing for the narrative interview, a key strategy involves formulating a question that not only aligns with the research objectives but also allows the interviewee the flexibility to guide the narrative. This question should be open-ended, encouraging the interviewee to start and conclude their story on their terms. (cf. Küsters, 2022) This approach ensures that the material gathered is both relevant to the research question and reflective of the interviewee's perspectives.

The narrative interview method in housing research provides new insights and sheds light, for example, on the motives for housing decisions. As housing wishes and ideas cannot always be explained in a short and straightforward way, this method offers the opportunity to gain some distance and self-reflection in the narrative process.

For research centered around specific and relatively well-defined questions, Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr (cf. 2014, S.126) suggest the use of guideline-based interviews.

Similar to the narrative interview, this method involves developing a guideline beforehand. However, unlike the narrative approach, the guideline in this context directs the conversation, aiming to elicit direct responses to predefined topics relevant to the research project (cf. Przyborski, Wohlrab-Sahr, 2014, S.127ff). As Eckardt (cf. 2014, S.158) notes, the guideline serves two purposes: verifying existing assumptions and fostering the development of new hypotheses.

The interview begins with a preliminary discussion where the questions are broadly outlined. The guideline encompasses themes and sub-themes intended to structure the interview without constraining it. Should the responses become disjointed, the guideline assists in steering the conversation back to unexplored topics and allows for the posing of specific questions. In the analysis phase, this guideline is instrumental in creating categories or codes, as they are commonly referred to in the field, facilitating the analysis and derivation of conclusions.

In the sub-project Eigentum the initial question posed was: "How did you come to buy a house or flat?" This sub-project, like others, employed the interview method. However, it uniquely combined guideline-based interviews with an accompanying sketch for a more comprehensive approach. The focus was on homeowners, specifically four couples owning single-family homes in the Weimar area. Consequently, the study offers a series of detailed portraits, exploring the relationship of these four households with their homes.

The analysis enabled the formation of categories applicable to a broader sample, thus positioning the study as a work in progress. The potential for deepening the analysis through additional interviews is evident. However, the constraints of the research workshop's timeframe limited the feasibility of conducting more interviews.

The sub-project Wohnwünsche und ihre Erfüllung zwischen Gemeinschaftsprojekt und Eigenheim,  served a dual purpose. It provided content-related insights and acted as a practical test for applying the narrative interview method. By selecting interview partners who were residents of community projects and had previous experiences with single-family homes - whether living in, dreaming of, or aspiring to own one - we ensured they were aware of our interest in their motives and desires concerning housing. The opening question for these interviews was: "How did you come to live here in this housing project today?" Conducting and evaluating narrative interviews effectively requires practice to gain proficiency. The experience gained in this sub-project was a valuable step, though not sufficient to declare mastery of the method.

In the  sub-project Weiterentwerfen, students from Bauhaus-Universität Weimar employed open-ended guided interviews with residents in their homes. These interviews aimed to explore living practices and their physical manifestations, with a particular focus on identifying potential transformations in design. The verbal interviews were supplemented with visual survey methods, including photographs, drawings of floor layouts, and plans, to comprehensively capture the physical-material aspects of housing practices.

Implementing the narrative interview method presented certain challenges, primarily due to varying levels of comfort among interviewees with open self-expression. Some participants initially struggled, either finding themselves at a loss for words or requiring time to reflect and warm up to the discussion. Patience and sensitivity were crucial in these situations, as was creating a welcoming and relaxed atmosphere. This approach involved accommodating pauses and giving interviewees the space to develop and articulate their thoughts.

The initial narrative flow offered valuable starting points for the researcher, enabling the identification of topics that could be explored further. These initial responses often served as springboards for more in-depth discussions, allowing for the clarification of any ambiguities through follow-up questions. To aid this process, a well-structured backup guideline was prepared. This guideline proved useful, particularly when the natural flow of conversation was brief, by providing a framework for posing specific, topic-related questions towards the end of the interview.

In evaluating narrative interviews, it's essential to consider not only the content of the answers but also the structural elements of the narration. This includes the starting and ending points, the sequence of the narrative, as well as any repetitions, pauses, unspoken or withdrawn statements, uncertainties, or other emotional cues (cf. Küsters, 2022). Applying this comprehensive approach to analysis proved to be both fascinating and challenging in practice.

The research workshop also experimented with a combination of narrative and guided interviews. This approach began with an open-ended question inviting the interviewee to share a story, followed by more targeted questions based on a predefined guideline. Conducting these interviews with a two-member research team offered significant advantages. This collaborative method ensured that both researchers were consistently aligned on the specific follow-up questions to ask and the direction the interview should take after the initial narrative segment.

Utilizing sketches and visual aids (such as maps of the residence area, timelines) in conducting interviews was found to be highly effective. These tools served multiple purposes: they eased initial interactions (breaking the ice), positively impacted the interview atmosphere, and were instrumental in reconstructing life stages (like the birth of a child, divorce, relocation, etc.). These visualizations aided researchers in organizing thought processes, asking precise questions to clear up any misunderstandings, and in deepening the interviewees' reflections.

A notable aspect across all three sub-projects was the frequent participation of couples. Post-interview, it remains an open question whether interviewing household members together, especially couples, about their housing decisions is more advantageous than conducting individual interviews. Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr (cf. 2014, S.82) emphasize the need to ascertain whether couples or families have a common story relevant to the research that can be collectively narrated. Given that housing decisions within couples are often interdependent, joint interviews seem logical. However, as Przyborski and Wohlrab-Sahr also note, conducting a narrative interview with multiple participants deviates from the standard narrative interview structure. Individual interviews, on the other hand, may facilitate a more focused conversational environment. Experimenting further with the method, including interviewing household members individually but consecutively, could provide additional insights. Nonetheless, finding a definitive answer to this question may remain elusive due to the diverse nature of individuals and relationship dynamics.