Difference between revisions of "Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Clair-AntoineVeyrier moved page Annie Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013 to Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013 without leaving a redirect: first name in page + space)
 
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Annie Irvine; Paul Drew; Roy Sainsbury
 
|Author(s)=Annie Irvine; Paul Drew; Roy Sainsbury
 
|Title=“Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
 
|Title=“Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Interviews;
 
|Key=Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013
 
|Key=Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013
 
|Year=2013
 
|Year=2013
Line 9: Line 9:
 
|Volume=13
 
|Volume=13
 
|Number=1
 
|Number=1
|Pages=87-106
+
|Pages=87–106
 +
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1468794112439086
 +
|DOI=10.1177/1468794112439086
 +
|Abstract=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.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 14:13, 4 December 2019

Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013
BibType ARTICLE
Key Irvine-Drew-Sainsbury2013
Author(s) Annie Irvine, Paul Drew, Roy Sainsbury
Title “Am I not answering your questions properly?” Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Interviews
Publisher
Year 2013
Language
City
Month
Journal Qualitative Research
Volume 13
Number 1
Pages 87–106
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1468794112439086
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

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.

Notes