Doing interviews in qualitative research requires a particular set of skills, especially when that the interview is a face to face interaction. However, under constraining conditions, more and more researchers are conducting their interviews over the phone, or even on skype. To what extent can the answers vary from one context to another? And does that affect the validity of the findings?
Over the years, there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether self-discolosure is increased by the closeness of face-to-face interviews versus the anonymity of telephone interviews. As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence either way. So, if your interviews do involve a sensitive topic, that is something to think about.
Beyond that, I think most people have traditionally felt that the quality of interpersonal communication over the telephone was not as good as the kind of rapport that occurs in a face-to-face interview. I am curious, however, whether this opinion is changing now that video interviewing via Skype is an option.
I did a quick literature search on this topic and there is very little written about Skype for research interviewing. The best article I found is still in-press (pre-publication):
Deakin, H. & Wakefield (published online before in print) SKYPE interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research. (DOI: 10.1177/1468794113488126).
FYI Your concern about "validity" strikes me as applying a quantitative concept to qualitative research. In quantitative terms, validity means that something is truthful or accurate. In qualitative terms, all research occurs in a specific context, which can easily affect what people say and the way that they say it. So think of face-to-face interviewing as a specific kind of situation that will have effects, and the same is true of any other kind of interviewing format. Then the real issue is how your research participants will relate to talking about your topic in a given interview format -- as in the example of self-disclosure on sensitive topics, which I mentioned above.
The proximity in the context of the interview face-to-face promotes confidence that leads to a larger facility for the interviewee to share emotionally intense experiences.
I believe that unless it is totally impossible is preferable to face-to-face interview to obtain data of facial expression, pauses, body expressions, this nonverbal expression that is itself also data for analysis.
Over the years, there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether self-discolosure is increased by the closeness of face-to-face interviews versus the anonymity of telephone interviews. As far as I know, there is no conclusive evidence either way. So, if your interviews do involve a sensitive topic, that is something to think about.
Beyond that, I think most people have traditionally felt that the quality of interpersonal communication over the telephone was not as good as the kind of rapport that occurs in a face-to-face interview. I am curious, however, whether this opinion is changing now that video interviewing via Skype is an option.
I did a quick literature search on this topic and there is very little written about Skype for research interviewing. The best article I found is still in-press (pre-publication):
Deakin, H. & Wakefield (published online before in print) SKYPE interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research. (DOI: 10.1177/1468794113488126).
FYI Your concern about "validity" strikes me as applying a quantitative concept to qualitative research. In quantitative terms, validity means that something is truthful or accurate. In qualitative terms, all research occurs in a specific context, which can easily affect what people say and the way that they say it. So think of face-to-face interviewing as a specific kind of situation that will have effects, and the same is true of any other kind of interviewing format. Then the real issue is how your research participants will relate to talking about your topic in a given interview format -- as in the example of self-disclosure on sensitive topics, which I mentioned above.
Thank you David, especially for the reference. I was indeed thinking of skype interviewing. It will be quite an experience and I would probably write somehting about it to share with other colleagues on Researchgate.
That's a really good question. Conducting phone or Skype interviews does not allow the researcher to draw from the visual aspects such as facial and body expression and the ability to gauge the interview. Being there also has added advantages such as building rapport. These aspects could contribute to the richness of the data collected.
I'd just say "what David Morgan says" and add this little piece.
I think (based both on personal experience and my reading of the literature) there's little doubt that doing interviews face-to-face versus voice-only over the phone versus video-and-voice over Skype produces different effects. However there are lots of such effects, and whether or not they're greater than, for example, the skill of the interviewer is really unknown - maybe unknowable.
A related question, is about "mixed-mode" data collection, where some interviews are done face-to-face and some over (usually) the phone. There's a considerable literature on this, although mainly in the context of (quantitative) survey research. Much of that is summarised in a 2007 paper from the NCRM in the UK
Roberts, C., 2007. Mixing Modes of Data Collection in Surveys: A Methodological Review, ESRC National Centre for Research Methods. http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/418/
There's also a chapter (Ch 9) in Max Bergman's Mixed Methods book, which looks to apply lessons from Survey Research to mixed and qualitative designs:
De Leeuw, E. & Hox, J., 2008. Mixing data collection methods: Lessons from survey research. In M. M. Bergman, ed. Advances in Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 138–150.
I though these were interesting and add to the debate!
Is There a Bias Against Telephone Interviews In Qualitative Research?
Res Nurs Health. Aug 2008; 31(4): 391–398.
Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing for household drug use surveys. Int J Addict. 1992 Jan;27(1):71-91.
If the data is collected through a questionnaire there is no difference as the answer involves just ticking the options.
If the data is collected through interview schedule, then there could be a lot of qualitative data that will get missed in case of phone interview. Face to face interview would be better in that case. The body language tells more than the words one uses. it can not lie. Words may!
If you need the non-verbal expressions of the respondents then this may not be easy to elicit by a phone call. Video skype conversation is close to face-to-face if the connectivity is good because breaking conversation could be fraustrating and time consuming.
Face-to-face interview is always better because of the many advantages cited by others. However because of lack of time and cost sometimes phone interviews are preferred. A large collection of literature is already available for the purpose. You may see the following:
Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239-242.
Bertrand, C., & Bourdeau, L. (2010). Research interviews by Skype: A new data collection method. In Academic Conferences Proceedings of the 9th European Conference of Research Methodology for Business and Management Studies(pp. 70-79).
Irvine, A. (2011). Duration, Dominance and Depth in Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews: A Comparative Exploration. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(3).
Sturges, J. E., & Hanrahan, K. J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107-118.
Sobin, C., Weissman, M. M., Goldstein, R. B., Adams, P., Wickramaratne, P., Warner, V., & Lish, J. D. (1993). Diagnostic interviewing for family studies: comparing telephone and face-to-face methods for the diagnosis of lifetime psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric Genetics, 3(4), 227-234.
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias.Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(1), 79-125.
Greenfield, T. K., Midanik, L. T., & Rogers, J. D. (2000). Effects of telephone versus face‐to‐face interview modes on reports of alcohol consumption.Addiction, 95(2), 277-284.
The settings of the interviews should be considered also. I also agreed with Rachel and Mohamed on the opinions that doing telephone interviews is very expensive and can not figure out the expressions of the interviewees. In addition, there are some circumstances that should be taken into consideration. For example, you are doing interviews in a community setting that telephones or internet facilities are not available. Meanwhile, doing face-to-face interviews for staff under influence of their senior manager (coersiveness). For my own experience, doing qualitative interviews at a community setting, it's better to conduct inexpensive face-to-face interviews and apply various approaches to explore more responses from the participants in the absence of their bosses.
When the sample is geographically dispersed and resources are limited it would be advisable to use both synchronous and asynchronous approaches. You could supplement questionnaire data with skype interview provided interview protocol is followed. The following article may be of help:
R. Janghorban; R.L. Roudsari et. al. 2014. Skype Interviewing: The New Generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research. Intl. J Qual. Stud. Health Well-being, 9, 10.3042/qhw.v9.24152
There is a fundamental problem with telephone interviews and that is the patience of the respondent will be tested severely. Telephone conversations are fundamentally different from face to face conversations whether formal, as in the case of an interview, and informal. The research interview does of course involve both as some informal acceptance is necessary for trust and legitimacy. Telephone conversations, particularly formal interviews, are necessarily limited in time and how questions are asked. There is little time for clarification, follow up questions or any reflexiveness in interviewer responsiveness to the respondent. There is the added problem of the number of phone calls that people receive, often at the busiest time of the day, trying to sell them something, solicit funds for worthwhile charities or, increasingly, those that are not so worthwhile. Skype and visual contact with a respondent does solve some of these problems, but generally formal face to face interviews, even if they are much more costly and time consuming than telephone interviews are, in my experience and opinion, are much more likely to provide valid and reliable data than telephone interviews.
Having recently conducted face to face interviews on a sensitive topic, I found this method invaluable. A shrug of the shoulders, a raised eyebrow, a sad face might also be picked up using another method. However, the feeling in the room, the connection to the participants' can only really be experienced by the researcher in a face to face situation.
On a number of occasions, I found it necessary to turn the digital recorder off. No words were spoken, only an intense use of my senses provided data for perception. For example noticing eyes filling with tears, changes in breathing patterns or signs of distress led me to assess the situation and decide whether or not it would be ethical to continue. This is a fine line as emotions can convey so much but a researcher must make that judgement in the best interests of the participant and not the research. Therefore, I would argue that face to face interviews are the gold standard.
I believe that using a phone interview could be another way of getting the information in situations where the topic under study is dipicting less emotions even when asseessing the once that were done face to face. Furthermore it must be used as the last option
Hi Julia,
If its only information you are after, then a phone interview might suffice. I was looking for rich data, a thick description of an experience therefore observations were an important part of my data collection.
For me it was important to strike up a rapport and gain the trust of the participants so that they might feel comfortable in my presence. On the phone you are but a voice and a video call also has its limitations.
One of the things that struck me when I arrived at participants homes was the fact that I was being judged. One participant had scrutinised my handwriting dating it correctly to a time when very small writing was popular and another sighed relief when she realised that I was not short of a few good meals. It seemed important for participants to know who I was, this made the interview situation more relaxed for all concerned and in my opinion facilitated the rich data I collected.
hi Mary, i agree 100% with you like other researches above it will be guided by the topic unders study. always Face to Face will produce a dnse data will all verbal and non-verbal information.
I have noticed that telephone interviews tend to be shorter. I'm not sure why this is--maybe when people are meeting face-to-face, interviewees allow more time for the discussion because they know they themselves and/or the interviewer has gone to more trouble to meet. Maybe social cues keep the discussion going longer. I would assume that a longer interview generates more information--but I don't know if research would bear this out.
I'm not aware that anyone has researched even these basic questions--when interviewing over the phone vs. in person vs. on skype--does the same interview protocol take more time, and is more or less information provided using one approach instead of another?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research