Methodological Considerations of Qualitative Email Interviews

Nehls, Kimberly

doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-3918-8.ch017

Cited by 4 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Setting the stage The ability to access cross-national participants by e-mail is particularly useful for international research (Bampton et al, 2013;James, 2017;Meho, 2006), especially studies conducted in geographically distant locations (Nehls, 2013), although not without its unique challenges. Globalization has instigated significant growth in cross-cultural studies and interviewing participants across country borders and cultures is common (Ryen, 2001).…”

Section: Qrom 153mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, gaps in cross-national studies remain regarding the application of theories and practices developed in advanced market contexts to those of developing economies. Studies aiming to address these gaps seek information from Kazmer and Xie (2008), Kitto and Barnett (2007), Meho (2006), Bampton et al (2013), Cook (2011), Nehls (2013, Ryen (2001), McCoyd and Kerson (2006) Table I. E-mail interviewadvantages…”

Section: Qrom 153mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…"E-research" is an umbrella term for an extensive collection of online and internet-based approaches encompassing a wide variety of activities from an equally broad span of research orientations (Pritchard and Whiting, 2012). Since the 1990s internet-based research in social science has used predominantly one-time quantitative surveys (Bampton and Cowton, 2002;Nehls, 2013). Researchers have, however, been slow to take full advantage of the technology to collect data from research participants, particularly as a methodological option for conducting interviews ( James, 2017;Pattison et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Teasing out fieldwork challenges with e-mail methods in cross-border research

Ingley

Singh

Malkani

2020

QROM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to reflect on the value of e-mails for recruiting and interviewing in a specific context in qualitative research, and second, to reflect on the benefits of the reflexive practice in sharing the research experience for gaining a deeper understanding of the field. The purpose is to raise points for consideration in research design for the e-mail method in this type of study. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on reflexivity and integrates fieldwork experiences to present the shared reflections and insights into the enabling and constraining aspects of using e-mail interviews with hard-to-access participants such as senior executives of international businesses. Findings Closer consideration needs to be given to the use of e-mail interviewing in the research design for such studies, especially regarding culturally held preconceptions about the research environment and how the inevitable challenges in engaging in cross-border research may be resolved. Originality/value The paper yields unanticipated insights into the potential of e-mail interviewing for studies that require responses from key informants who are otherwise unlikely to participate in the research. The paper brings greater transparency to researchers regarding the realities of using the method in this context, and thus, it expands the hitherto small repertoire of such studies in qualitative international business research. The contribution also lies in the value of deliberately creating a space for reflexive conversations that open the possibility of more profound understandings in qualitative research.

show abstract

Section: Qrom 153mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Qrom 153mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teasing out fieldwork challenges with e-mail methods in cross-border research

Ingley

Singh

Malkani

2020

QROM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As nurses and other investigators increasingly turn toward qualitative email interviews to examine a variety of phenomena and processes, the advantages (e.g., low cost, automatic transcription, increased access to geographically dispersed or hidden populations) and disadvantages (e.g., effort and willingness to write on behalf of participants, loss of sensory and emotional cues, increased possibility of dropout or discontinuous responses by participants) have begun to emerge (Bowden & Galindo-Gonzalez, 2015; Burns, 2010; Hamilton & Bowers, 2006; Hunt & McHale, 2007; James & Busher, 2006; Meho, 2006; Nehls, 2013). What remains an important consideration for nurses and is yet to be fully understood, especially in sensitive research, is understanding the quality of the data obtained and the procedures and contexts for using email interviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nurse and social science investigators are increasingly using email interviews to collect qualitative data (Nehls, 2013). Yet, the literature on understanding procedures for carrying out qualitative email interviews and comparing email interviews for appropriateness and equivalence to other more established qualitative interviews methods such as phone interviews remains limited, especially on sensitive topics research.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions

Hershberger

Kavanaugh

2017

Applied Nursing Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Despite an increasing use of qualitative email interviews by nurse researchers, there is little understanding about the appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to other qualitative data collection methods, especially on sensitive topics research. Purpose The purpose is to describe our procedures for completing asynchronous, email interviews and to evaluate the appropriateness and equivalency of email interviews to phone interviews in two qualitative research studies that examined reproductive decisions. Methods Content analysis guided the methodological appraisal of appropriateness and equivalency of in-depth, asynchronous email interviews to single phone interviews. Appropriateness was determined by: (a) participants’ willingness to engage in email or phone interviews, (b) completing data collection in a timely period, and (c) participants’ satisfaction with the interview. Equivalency was evaluated by: (a) completeness of the interview data, and (b) insight obtained from the data. Results Of the combined sample in the two studies (N = 71), 31% of participants chose to participate via an email interview over a phone interview. The time needed to complete the email interviews averaged 27 to 28 days and the number of investigator probe-participant response interchanges was 4 to 5 cycles on average. In contrast, the phone interviews averaged 59 to 61 minutes in duration. Most participants in both the email and phone interviews reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with their ability to express their true feelings throughout the interview. Regarding equivalence, 100% of the email and phone interviews provided insight into decision processes. Although insightful, two of the email and one phone interview had short answers or, at times, underdeveloped responses. Participants’ quotes and behaviors cited within four published articles, a novel evaluation of equivalency, revealed that 20% to 37.5% of the citations about decision processes were from email participants, which is consistent with the percent of email participants. Conclusions In-depth, asynchronous email interviews were appropriate and garnered rich, insightful data that augmented the phone interviews. Awareness of the procedures, appropriateness, and nuances when carrying out email interviews on sensitive topics may provide nurse researchers with the ability to obtain thick, rich data that can best advance clinical practice and direct future research.

show abstract

In-Depth Interviewing

Osborne

Grant-Smith

2021

Methods in Urban Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter explores in-depth interviewing, a widely used method in qualitative research aimed at building a depth of understanding, rather than factual or abstract information. We give a brief account of structured interviews, but these have more in common with surveys and questionnaires than in-depth interviewing. Semi-structured interviews are interviews that follow a set of questions, allowing some flexibility in how questions are asked, and provide the researcher with the opportunity to ask clarifying and follow-up questions. Unstructured interviews are more flexible and open-ended. As such, they can be quite unpredictable and varied and are well suited to exploratory research and other research interested in meaning and experiences. There is a range of ethical considerations when using this method, including confidentiality establishing clear and reasonable expectations and offering appropriate reciprocity to research participants, and the potential of this method to cause harm, to both researcher and participants. In-depth interviewing is a powerful but demanding method for urban research; it is resource intensive and requires a lot of skills on the part of the researcher to design effective and ethical protocols and to generate meaning from complex, often messy, data.

show abstract

Methodological Considerations of Qualitative Email Interviews

Cited by 4 publications

References 25 publications

Teasing out fieldwork challenges with e-mail methods in cross-border research

Teasing out fieldwork challenges with e-mail methods in cross-border research

Comparing appropriateness and equivalence of email interviews to phone interviews in qualitative research on reproductive decisions

In-Depth Interviewing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About