Startup funding interviews: 15 prompts for founders on choosing finance

These fifteen prompts examine a real funding decision rather than asking founders to predict whether they would buy a service. Select only those needed for the research question. Ask follow-ups in the participant's own words and do not turn the conversation into financial advice.

The prompts should surface the routes available to a company in England: Innovate UK grants, SEIS and EIS tax-advantaged investment, British Business Bank programmes, bank loans, angel investors and venture capital funds.

What to take away

1. 'What was happening when finance became an option?'

Look for the event, cost or opportunity that started the search. Establish the company stage and date.

2. 'What needed to happen next?'

Ask about the milestone, not just the amount sought. The answer may concern a prototype, stock, recruitment, sales or cash flow.

3. 'How did you calculate the amount?'

Explore assumptions, contingency and timing. Do not request confidential spreadsheets unless the study genuinely requires them.

Worked example: prompt 3 asks, 'How did you calculate the amount?' Follow-up 1: 'What did you include in the first version of that figure?' Follow-up 2: 'Who checked the figure before you used it?'

4. 'Which routes did you consider first?'

Let the participant name founder money, customers, grants, loans, angels or venture funds without reading a preferred list to them.

5. 'Where did you look for information?'

Ask for actual websites, people and documents. Compare remembered guidance with the current official record after the session.

6. 'Which source did you trust most, and why?'

Trust may come from authority, experience or a referral. Record the reason without treating it as proof that the source was correct.

7. 'What did you rule out?'

A rejected option can expose repayment concerns, eligibility limits, dilution preferences or a misunderstanding that content should address.

8. 'Which requirement was hardest to interpret?'

Keep the participant's language. Later, verify scheme and product facts against sources such as the government's business support finder.

9. 'What evidence did you already have?'

Distinguish accounts, customer contracts, forecasts, product records and verbal interest. Ask what took longest to assemble.

10. 'Who else influenced the decision?'

Map co-founders, board members, accountants, lawyers, lenders and investors. Ask what each person needed before agreeing.

11. 'Where did the process slow down?'

Use a timeline. Search, application, diligence, negotiation and receipt are separate stages with different causes of delay.

12. 'Did you stop or change route?'

People who withdrew or chose not to raise can reveal risks missed by samples drawn solely from completed deals.

13. 'What would you do differently now?'

Ask for a specific action. Avoid prompting the participant to praise the service that recruited them.

14. 'What information would have changed the decision?'

This tests the practical value of proposed content. An answer of "none" is useful and should be retained.

15. 'What should I have asked?'

End with room for an issue outside the discussion guide. It does not replace a prepared final check on consent or next steps.

Run the interviews responsibly

The GOV.UK Service Manual's in-depth interview guidance recommends recruiting current or likely users and planning secure handling of personal data. Its privacy guidance covers data minimisation, consent records, access and retention.

Publish the inclusion method before naming any conclusions: recruitment channel, company stages, English regions, dates, sample size and exclusions. A typical starting range is 8 to 12 founders per distinct route, stage or English region, extended until new accounts stop adding routes. Recruit through angel networks, accelerator cohorts, accountancy practices and grant applicant networks.

A disclosure template can read: 'We recruited through [channel] and interviewed [number] founders at [stage] in [English regions] between [dates]. ' Analyse unsuccessful and successful experiences separately. Do not quote identifying funding details without clear permission.

Immediately after each session, separate direct observations from interpretation, compare accounts across participants and find the case that does not fit the first explanation.

If an interview reveals a question about a live scheme, mark it for source checking, not answering from memory. A later synthesis should show which decision each finding informs and where more research is needed.

Before you act

Common questions

How should a researcher handle a participant's trust in a funding information source?

Record the reason for trust without treating it as proof that the source was correct. Trust may come from authority, experience or a referral. Compare remembered guidance with the current official record after the session.

What should be done if an interview reveals a question about a live scheme?

Mark it for source checking rather than answering from memory. Verify scheme and product facts against sources such as the government's business support finder. This prevents relying on outdated or incorrect information.

Why is it important to analyse unsuccessful and successful funding experiences separately?

People who withdrew or chose not to raise can reveal risks missed by samples drawn solely from completed deals. Separate analysis helps identify different causes of delay and decision factors. This leads to a more complete understanding of the funding process.