I agree. You can you use one website of interviews and the interviews does not need to identify himself.

I can agree with Skype, however, web based interview is better. Then you have time you need - and may think a bit.

You do. It is fine and I think there is no adverse effect.

In press interviews, the interviewer usually gives an idea of the range of topics, not the actual questions so as not to lose spontaneity, lose data (the duration of silence before the question is answered may be meaningful), get rehearsed answers, or lose the ability to ask new questions that are suggested by some of the answers. If some of your questions require preparation (retrieve something from a file, for example) then the preparation becomes a pre-requisite for participating.

An interview is not a forum for optional selection of answers. It requires an intricate understanding of the logic (principle) involved based on the question. I would opine that an overview of the intended questions should be provided to provide the questionee with an abstract knowledge of what to study in preparation for the interview.

A clause as related to the questions is even enough to provide a background for or from where the questions would look like. Just as it applies to TV interviews.

Linas/Vilemar:  I have no experience/knowledge of web-based interviews.  Do you have any experience, information or sites you can share?

I was thinking of Skype mainly because it preserves the oral dialogue aspect & interaction of the interviews. Especially for those who have English as a second/other language, I thought oral interviews might be easier.

To be honest though, my questions could be easily provided in writing, although this might make it more of a survey - are there differences (even if there are open questions) & is it a bad thing?

Also, as the identity of participants is not an issue during the data gathering stage, it is a shame that this RG platform does not permit the distribution of surveys.  For example, it would be great to ask members who 'follow you' to participate via private message, then perhaps ask the questions individually in follow up messages.

Of course, data would be made anonymous during the analysis & processing of results, but this would be a great way for eliciting the views colleagues in the research.  Personally, I am not sure of the real differences in getting (consented) data by asking a question via a message, orally via interview or Skype, or from a web-based platform, if the communication is confidential, private, & forms part of a single research gathering exercise.

Hello, I also conducted interviews (on expatriate Finns) via Skype. I did not send the questions beforehand, but I cannot really think of a reason why this should not be done. Except perhaps the fact that then you are tied to that order of questions rather than having a more flexible discussion, where you follow the logic of the interviewee. The thing I would consider is having an online questionnaire to complete in addition to the Skype - this way you would not have to spend interview time to ticking answers to demographics or rank/scale questions. You could just send them a link beforehand and have them do that on their own. The university has access to Webropol, so making the questionnaire would be free to you. (Or if you have max 10 questions then also SurveyMonkey is free to use). I interviewed people who had taken part in my online survey, so it was good that I already knew something about them before the interview. 

The other idea I am playing with is 'message interviews'.  These are similar to email interviews, & given that the interview is based on a small survey I have previously conducted, I am sort of ok with the loss of personal/interactive data you get from 'live' interviews (as described above by JLL). I can space the questions over a longer period of time, & this might be more amenable to the interviewees. Of course, an added bonus (for me) is that the replies are in text, which avoids the need for transcription. Participants can still interact & ask questions, but there are still the open questions that allow free responses.

I guess we are in a new era of communication  - we suffer from survey fatigue, don't always have the means to conduct 1:1 interviews, but we are also getting used to sending bite-size bits of information such as tweets & forum posts. Also, we can reach a broader audience with on-line questioning, so I imagine we will see new ways of information gathering gaining acceptance.

1) Skype, messaging or whatever: I remember commenting on email interviews on RG before. There are advantages, but there are also severe disadvantages of any other form compared to face-to-face. Given your study, I would tend to prefer skype because it gives you the highest degree of control of the interview situation. Unfortunately, skype connections tend to break down in most inconvenient moments ...

2) Sending interview questions: If you send the exact questions beforehand, you don't really know anymore whose answers you get, and how these answers emerged. I provide topics only when asked. In my research this rarely happens because people get a brief description of the research when I make first contact, which in most cases proves to be sufficient. When I'm asked for questions, I comply because it puts the interviewee at ease. However, I never provide the exact questions. I use a list of major topics instead. See also Jean-Luc's answer.

Hi Nicholas, I've been doing research interviews since 1999 and I always offer potential participants the chance to see the questions before they decide whether or not they want to take part in the interviews - or if this is not possible for some reason, e.g. they can't read, I explain what kinds of things I'm interested in hearing their views on. For me this is an ethical stance, it means they are giving more fully informed consent.

I see you're considering different types of interviewing, and can suggest a couple of references which you may find useful. Paul Hanna (2012) compared face-to-face, telephone, and Skype interviewing in this paper http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/12/2/239.short (he is not on ResearchGate, though a couple of other researchers with the same name are here). Kaye Stacey and Jill Vincent (2011) did some interesting work on multimedia interviewing in a structured format which they sent to participants on CD to be completed on screen - very similar to web-based interviewing - they are both on ResearchGate, and their paper is here http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/11/5/605. Gemma Pearce and her colleagues (2014) have developed a method of web-based interviewing using instant messaging which may be helpful to you: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13645579.2013.827819#.VeapBJfYqzw (she is on ResearchGate too).

I hope this is helpful. Good luck!

Jochen:  I share your views on providing the exact questions. Also, for the reasons you have mentioned, whilst Skype does give a face to face element, there are studies that positively promote email/message interviews as possibly removing this personal element and freeing up the interviewee to give more honest answers. These also provide a convenient way of reducing the arrangements for a set interview time, allowing interviews to be conducted simultaneously, and reducing the need for transcription. Where the inter-personal aspects are not so much of a focus, then synchronous/direct contact may not be so important, but this will depend on the individual aspects of each research enquiry.

Helen:  thank you very much for these sources! It is good to see that the fact we can contact & interact directly with our peers has made RG more than just a 'social network' site  :-)

Nicholas, there is more to email/message interviews, see the discussion of the question

How can I do qualitative research interviews by e-mail?

in Qualitative Interviews.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_I_do_qualitative_research_interviews_by_e-mail

Jochen: agreed, there is a lot more to email interviews. In the thread you provide, you cite: Meho, L. I. (2006), E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 57: 1284–1295. doi: 10.1002/asi.20416. This study offers a good summary of the pros & cons of the different approaches, and also gives a list of considerations that need to be made when thinking about an email approach. You can gain & lose by the email approach, but it may be suitable & efficient for gaining data in the circumstances they describe. The same can be said for the message approach (also mentioned by Helen), so as with all methodologies, you need to match the attributes of a method with the aims & requirements of the research objective. Also, we need to be flexible in our choice of methods, & if needed, adapt them to our own particular circumstances.

My methodology for the study is still under consideration  :-)

Hi

Interesting point you raise regarding semi structured interviews.  If you look at the work by Minichiello, Aroni, and Hays (2008) in particular his definition of semi structured interviews there are “no fixed wording or order applied to the interview questions” (51).  The use of semi structured interviews is the targeting of general topic areas where the direction taken by the interview process is led by the responses from the interviewee. Presenting the interviewee with the questions prior to the interview is a structured interview that will lack depth in topic examination (Silverman, 2006). This also raises the question of quantitative versus qualitative approach which is an initial decision within any research process. It appears that you are using a quantitative approach with the application of ranking and scaling. I hope this is of benefit to you?

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., & Hays, T. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis (3 ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Longman Cheshire.

Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction (3 ed.). London: Sage.

Hi Keith,

Using Skype, it would be a semi-structured interview in that the introductory question allows the interviewee to answer freely & new ideas that are brought up during the interview can also be discussed. At the moment, the message format does indeed loose some of the reciprocity, in that the participant is presented with the questions & provides the answers (which makes it pretty much structured). The idea is however, that participants will be able to contact the researcher (comment, clarification etc.). Likewise, the researcher will be able to respond to answers .... whether this interaction occurs is another question though, so the results might be different for the two approaches.

Qualitative Vs quantitative?  Mixed method!  Participants give set info, scale their importance/value, select from options, as well as (mainly) answering open questions such as 'tell me about xyz'.

Dear Nicholas,

It depends upon the nature of your research. If you are studying a phenomenon, practices and systems, it would be a better idea to give a broad topic to the respondents ion advance so that they are well prepared and you get more 'rich' information that you need.

However, when you are studying personal thoughts, perceptions etc., it would be a good idea to ask questions during the interview so that you get more spontaneous 'impromptu' answers that are not prepared in advance. In such cases, the reliability of answers are much higher.

Here's my experience: I do telephone interviews with product users to support product design. These 1-hour interviews consist of rating questions and some quite specific and technical open-ended questions.

In this context, I’ve found it works well to email the questions beforehand. I invite the participant to review the questions beforehand or simply have the document available to refer to during the interview. An important consideration for me is the comfort of the participant - this seems to help in that regard. As well, sometimes when I recruit participants, they specifically ask to get the questions ahead of time.

As a researcher of research, especially questionnaires and surveys, this action generates prepared responses and compromises otherwise most honest responses.  People have the chance to think it over and change what would be their immediate answer.  The result would be the bias of desirable answers.

Mary-Helen:  I agree that sometimes giving someone time to think through an answer may lend them to formulate something that is less spontaneous. But, for interviews that look to gain a considered opinion (I am taking more of a research interview than a media interview), I am not sure we should instantly assume that considered answers have been biased to make them more amenable or desirable.  Just because something is prepared, does this make it any less honest?

Some references would be really helpful (this is not really my field), as I have often heard this opinion before, but in the context I describe, I have difficulty in seeing how it is a solid thing to assert.  Yes, in some circumstances it could be true, but I can see it just as often not being a fair judgement on the motivation & honesty of those answering the questions.  Perhaps even more so when we think of research surveys & interviews where an 'anonymous' respondent is less likely to feel they have to hide things, compared to e.g. a 'known' person who's opinions are going to beattributably reported.

I would not give respondents interview question ahead of time-- under any circumstances.  A considered opinion, as in qualitative interview, can still be done w/o that aspect.  I have done it, yes, it takes more time (both in the interview AND the coding), but that is the nature of the research.  The respondent can answer, think about it, ("consider" is different than "prepared") and review, change, add, etc to the original answer he/she gave. 

Granted many will disagree and go ahead with giving respondents the questions ahead of time-- I would not -- and, as the researcher has to state that in their methodology/procedures section, would question validly/reliability/accurate etc. of the findings..  It would be quite interesting and revealing to do a study on both ways (with and w/o giving respondent questions ahead of time, same research, same questionnaire)  and compare responses.

In my experience, "anonymous" respondents cannot be used; we need to  keep track, even with codes, of who has responded and who has not and sometimes, may need to contact a particular respondent again.  In all my years, I have never carried out or been part of a study with anonymous respondents.  Perhaps, that is used in market research??

I have given the semi-structured questionnaire in advance for the very first time to my interviewee. The information received during the interview was truly rich. I had answers for all the questions and it was certainly honest. I can't make a stand at this point but I think I would try this with several interviewees to find out. Maybe, honesty works well with topics of personal experiences in events that have taken place months ago. If the questions are dealing with perceptions, then I am certain that it would be favorable to the researcher.

Yes Prof. Nicholas E Rowe , we can. It will be easy for the interviewee to prepare the answers.

Mary-Helen: For a study that is technical and does not involve "emotion", Would you still think sharing questions prior to an interview is not a good idea?

John

it is never a good idea-- makes for bad research as prepared answere will by highly unreleable; subjects tent to give a select answer, i.e. "socially desirable" and this will creata a bias in the research

Mary-Helen: do you have any sources I could use to support your assertions?

During my phd studies, i had a semester course in scoicolgy dept on writing questions, and research courses since my bs day; taught research for several years, so i would suggest any text on question-wriintg and/or reserah methods text qualitative and quantitiave will teach you about biases in conductiing research, including socially desirable bias. when I taught my students "assertions" i let them know/ would tell them, that a large portion of conducting your reserach is using good judgement based on knowwledge and experience; the phrase, "do not give respondents the questions ahead of time" is most likely not written in a "source." go ahead and do it and you will learn first hand with your results and your findings about bias. there may very well be some research out there by somone who examined this issue, so i suggest you conduct a lit review for actual sources.

Mary-Helen: Thank you

I only provide the questions if asked by the interviewee. Also, I generally provide the broadest questions, and ask them in more detail during the interview.

In this scenario it is okay if the summary or a clue of the likely questions is provided before the interview, it will make the interviewee prepare very well.

It depends on which is more important to the primary objective-- prepared answers/prompts to ensure completeness over potential forgetfulness, or spontaneity/top of mind responses, that you only get from the first hearing in real time. You can also mix and match if desired.

In seeking to understand a phenomenon, is it desirable to share or not share the entire interview guide? @@@@@@

I agree with Heather Douglas' comments.

The ideal approach is to seek neutral insights, but it's also important to provide them with some pre-interview information about your study—specifically, its theme and the broader area from which you are seeking the interviewee's perspective. This strategy ensures unbiased information for the study.

Otherwise, if the interviewee starts preparation (on the basis of your provided questions), they might provide exaggerated information, aiming for efficiency rather than factual accuracy. :)

Does that mean interview questions should not be given before conducting the interview?

We just published an article about the this, having reflected on the topic for some time. We concluded that there are mostly advantages of sharing questions in advance. Haukås, Åsta and Tishakov, Therese. "Sharing interview questions in advance: Methodological considerations in applied linguistics research" European Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/eujal-2023-0045