In-depth interviews. Unlike quantitative surveys, in which each respondent is asked the same set of predetermined questions, in-depth interviews are unstructured or loosely structured conversations between an interviewer and an interviewee. There is no formal structured interview guide and the interviewer is free to move the conversation in any direction of interest that may come up. In in-depth interviews the interviewee is encouraged to talk in detail about personal experiences. The goal is to explore in depth the interviewee's point of view, feelings and perspective on the issue at hand. This type of consultation requires skilled interviewers and can be time-consuming. Moreover, the responses can be difficult to interpret. However, it is a suitable method to investigate complex and sensitive issues. In-depth interviews have been used in different transitional justice contexts and at different stages of the transitional justice process. In the OHCHR consultation in northern Uganda, 39 key participants were interviewed to provide a degree of cultural interpretation of responses from the focus groups. In the aftermath of the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation conducted in-depth interviews both with victims and with perpetrators to learn about their attitude and satisfaction with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s procedures and outcome.14 C. Mixed methods research/Triangulation The quantitative and qualitative approaches are not mutually exclusive. Many data-gathering exercises use both to complement each other. Given the complexities of scientifically studying transitional justice and national reconciliation, most researchers use several types of methodologies so that each can compensate for the limitations of the others, add different types of data, maximize the reliability and validity of the findings, and thereby provide greater insight. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission undertook, during 2003–2005, a large-scale consultation that integrated quantitative and qualitative elements. The quantitative methodology was intended to test for preferences and priorities through the application of a survey, whereas the qualitative method was intended to give a rich level of detail that would be “particularly useful to policymakers”. This detail was captured in focus group discussions. The American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Science and Human Rights Program and the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation conducted a six-year study of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. It used a wide range of methodologies in 14 10 Ruth Picker, “Victims’ perspectives about the human rights violations hearings”, research report (Johannesburg, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2005); Sasha Gear, “Wishing Us Away: challenges facing ex-combatants in the 'new' South Africa”, Violence and Transition Series, vol. 8 (Johannesburg, Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, 2002).