‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
By A. Irvine, Paul Drew, R. Sainsbury. 2013
657 citations recorded by the source corpus.
This article considers spoken interaction in semi-structured qualitative research interviews, comparing those that are conducted by telephone or face-to-face. It draws upon recent empirical research that illuminated some of the differences that may be observed between these two interview modes. Methodological techniques drawn from Conversation Analysis were used to conduct a systematic and transparent comparison of the interview interactions, focusing on the spoken interactional devices that researcher and interviewee employ in order to pursue and maintain a collaborative and comprehensible dialogue. The article begins with an overview of previous discussion on the interactional effects of the telephone in qualitative interviews. Here, we find that while instructional texts have traditionally advised that the telephone mode is not well-suited to the task of qualitative interviewing – primarily because the lack of face-to-face contact is said to restrict the development of rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter – researchers giving personal accounts of conducting telephone interviews tend to offer more nuanced or critical reflections on the extent to which the lack of visual cues affects the interaction in practice. Empirical findings are then presented on: formulation and completion, clarification and comprehension, acknowledgement, interviewees’ checks on the ‘adequacy’ of their talk, and the duration of interviews. Key findings were that: completion or formulation of interviewee talk by the researcher was more common in face-to-face interviews; interviewee requests for clarification were slightly more common in telephone interviews; vocalized acknowledgements given by the researcher were less frequent in telephone interviews; interviewee checks on the adequacy of their responses were more common in telephone interviews; and telephone interviews tended to be shorter than those conducted face-to-face. The article discusses possible explanations for the findings that emerge alongside consideration of some potential implications.
Subfields: Language and Linguistics, Sociology and Political Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/687885fa79ee4db8e4893cf4e5e817a61f93d385
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Language and Linguistics
In Sociology and Political Science
Citations in the corpus
- Episodic Narrative Interview: Capturing Stories of Experience With a Methods Fusion (2019, background): “Although developing an individualized rapport with interview participants is generally considered desirable (Irvine et al., 2012), semistructured interviews are most often protocoldriven, where frameworks and questions are meant to be used consistently during each interview in order to ensure…”
- CHE Principles: facilitating authentic and dialogical semi-structured interviews in educational research (2017, methodology): “This position values the duality of information sharing, where participants and researchers are recognized as both the givers and the receivers of information (Johnson 2009) and where researchers are encouraged to express (rather than to suppress) their humanity (Irvine, Drew, and Sainsbury 2013).”
- Telephonic qualitative research interviews: when to consider them and how to do them (2017, background): “…with alleged criminal offences, experience of purchasing over-the-counter drugs and medicines from pharmacies, mental health following surgery (Irvine et al., 2012; Trier-Bieniek, 2012; Holt, 2010; Chapple, 1999; Carr and Worth, 2001), or the emotive experiences of employees within their…”