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.

No abstract

Traditionally, methodological textbooks have advised that the telephone mode is not well suited to the task of qualitative interviewing. At the same time, there are well-rehearsed arguments as to why telephone interviews may be a useful option in some circumstances. Despite this debate, there remains very limited systematic empirical exploration of differences in the process and outcomes of qualitative telephone vs. face-to-face interviews. Based on a recent 'mode comparison' study that sought to contribute to this gap in methodological knowledge, analysis of the overall duration, dominance and depth of talk between researcher and participant in a small set of telephone and face-to-face interviews revealed the following findings. (i) Despite much variation in individual interview length, telephone interviews were typically, and on average, shorter than those conducted face-toface. (ii) The shorter duration of telephone interviews was a result of the participant speaking for less time, rather than a proportional reduction in talk from both parties. Additionally, in telephone interviews, participants generally held the floor for shorter stretches at a time. (iii) The researcher did slightly more talking during telephone interviews than in face-to-face interactions. Combined with the reduced amount of participant talk, this meant that the researcher tended to hold the floor for a greater proportion of the time in telephone interviews. (iv) To a moderate degree, the shorter length of telephone interviews could be accounted for by a reduction in coverage of themes. However, the principal explanation appeared to lie in a tendency for telephone interview participants to provide relatively less detail or elaboration. In this article, we consider why these differences may occur, if and how they might matter to the research, and how we might wish to modify interview practices in response.

No abstract

In this paper the authors present their reflections on a U.K. government–funded study exploring mental health and employment. Conducting research on a sensitive theme with a potentially vulnerable group gave renewed focus to some social research issues, including consent and control, rapport building, managing and responding to emotion, and offering appropriate longer term support. The researchers discuss their personal approaches and experiences (practical, methodological, ethical) during and after the fieldwork process. In the paper the authors highlight some of the challenges they faced and discuss how these were addressed and managed, sometimes differently, and not always resolved. They demonstrate the need for researchers to be aware of their “research footprint,” in particular the need to be reflexive and responsive to participants' emotional well-being, and for funders and employers to also be sensitive to and mindful of the demands of social research, including impacts on researchers' well-being.