Volume 17, No. 2, Art.

15
May 2016

Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion

of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Shannon M. Oltmann

Key words: Abstract: Interviews are a staple method used in qualitative research. Many authors hold face-to-
interview; face interviews to be the gold standard, or the assumed best mode in which to conduct interviews.
telephone; face-to- However, a large number of research projects are based on conducting interviews via telephone.
face; qualitative While some scholars have addressed the advantages and disadvantages of using telephones to
research conduct interviews, this work is scattered across multiple disciplines and lacks a cohesive,
comprehensive framework. The current article seeks to rectify this gap in the literature, by explicitly
developing the constructs of the interviewer context and the respondent context. By examining key
components in each of these contexts, the qualitative interviewer can make an informed, reflective
decision about the best interview mode to use for a particular project.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. The Interviewer Context
3. The Respondent Context
4. Discussion
5. Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Author
Citation

1. Introduction

Qualitative interviews have long been an essential research method. The

interview has been called the primary method used in qualitative research
(BURNARD, 1994; DOODY & NOONAN, 2013; MYERS & NEWMAN, 2007;
RYAN, COUGHLAN & CRONIN, 2009; SCHULTZE & AVITAL, 2011) and "the
most direct, research-focused interaction between research and participant"
(KAZMER & XIE, 2008, p.258; see also KVALE, 1996). In the qualitative
paradigm, interviews are often seen as one of the best ways to "enter into the
other person's perspective" (PATTON, 2002, p.341; see also CISNEROS-
PUEBLA, FAUX & MEY, 2004) and develop "thick descriptions of a given social
world analyzed for cultural patterns and themes" (WARREN, 2002, p.85). [1]

As a research method, interviews have been written about extensively for several
decades (e.g., KALEKIN-FISHMAN, 2002). However, there is a curious
juxtaposition between interviews as written about, and interviews as performed in
the course of research. The vast majority of writing about interview research
methods states that interviews should be conducted face-to-face or simply
assumes that they will be done in this mode. For example, SEIDMAN (1998,

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research (ISSN 1438-5627)
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

p.40) states that the only reason to use the telephone is to set up a time to meet
face-to-face with respondents. GERSON and HOROWITZ (2002), MERRIAM
(2009), and PATTON (2002) all describe the process of interviewing, including
the steps of gathering a tape recorder, sitting down with the respondent, and
taking notes on nonverbal cues as the interview progresses. Clearly, they picture
the interview solely as a face-to-face experience, as these steps would not be
possible otherwise. VOGL (2013) summarized that "telephone interviews are
often dismissed" (p.134). [2]

In the past three decades, however, interviewing by telephone has become

increasingly common. The telephone as an appropriate mode for qualitative
interviewing has gained in popularity as evidenced through the relevant literature,
in which there are scores of articles based on telephone interviewing (as well as
other modes, such as Skype, VoIP [Voice over internet protocol], and e-mail). [3]

HOLT (2010), MILLER (1995), OPDENAKKER (2006), STURGES and

HANRAHAN (2004), and VOGL (2013), and others experimented with the use of
the telephone as an interviewing mode and determined that it produced
comparable results to face-to-face interviewing. Yet, as NOVICK (2008) noted,
many of these authors "implied that the use of the telephone could undermine
quality when reporting that telephones were substituted for face-to-face
interviews only when necessary" (p.394). In other words, most of the scholars
who have examined telephone interviewing have been concerned with whether it
can "stand in" for face-to-face interviewing, rather than explicitly recognizing that
telephone interviewing might have its own unique merits (for an exception, see
VOGL, 2013). [4]

HOLT (2010) argued that "the idea that the telephone (or indeed other
technologies) may be as useful or perhaps more appropriate for the production of
narrative data has been left unexplored" (p.114). LECHUGA (2012), however,
concluded that "the many qualities that define successful qualitative interviews do
not require the interviewer and respondent to be in view of each other" (p.266).
Furthermore, "many of the disadvantages and advantages claimed for telephone
interviewing seem to relate not to the medium itself but to the manner in which it
is employed in social research, and would seem to apply equally to any interview"
(TAYLOR, 2002, p.22). [5]

There is some extant literature which explicitly discusses the reasons that
telephone interviews were conducted (e.g. HOLT, 2010; STURGES &
HANRAHAN, 2004; SWEET, 2002; VOGL, 2013); there are also a few papers
which discuss the choices or trade-offs between face-to-face and telephone
interviews (GLOGOWSKA, YOUNG & LOCKYER, 2011; LECHUGA, 2012;
STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004; VOGL, 2013). However, there is little structure
to this discussion. Researchers tend to consider a few advantages or
disadvantages, without a unifying perspective, focusing only on the few elements
that were relevant to their research. In addition, the discussion of face-to-face
versus telephone interviewing modes is scattered across multiple disciplines. [6]

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

The current article seeks to rectify these weaknesses in the literature by

presenting an explicit, comprehensive framework within which to evaluate the
merits of face-to-face and telephone interviewing modes. It is argued that the
decision about interview mode should be made carefully and thoughtfully, with
appropriate consideration to both the interviewer context and the respondent
context. As RYAN et al. (2009) noted, "it is pertinent that the type of interview is
congruent with the research question and aims and objectives of the study"
(p.310). [7]

Interviews are "seen as negotiated accomplishments of both interviewers and

respondents that are shaped by the contexts and situations in which they take
place" (FONTANA & FREY, 2000, p.663, my emphasis). This article suggests
that the contextual elements of different interview modes should be explicitly
recognized and thoughtfully addressed by researchers (extending and refining
the argument suggested by VOGL, 2013). Essentially, I am arguing for
researchers to consider context as they make decisions about research design
and implementation. There have been previous calls for researchers to "take a
more reflexive stance toward their craft by considering the contextual details of
the interview setting and process" (SCHULTZE & AVITAL, 2011, p.2; see also
MYERS & NEWMAN, 2007); this article provides the framework through which
such reflexivity can occur. In the following sections, I describe components of the
interviewer context and the respondent context, explaining how various factors
may affect interviews. [8]

2. The Interviewer Context

In this section, several factors that may play a role in such a decision are
discussed (see Table 1). For the first time, they are linked together explicitly, as
the interviewer context. These are factors which impact interviewers and which
should be considered as the decision of interview mode is made.

Time and financial costs

Geographical distribution of respondents
Sensitive or controversial topics
Technology problems
Interviewer safety
Note taking
Interaction effects
Non-verbal language and cues

Table 1: Components of interviewer context [9]

Perhaps the clearest components of interviewer context are time and financial
costs. Several authors note that face-to-face interviewing can accrue substantial
time and financial expenses, due to the need to travel to respondents, as the
universal advice is to make the respondent comfortable by conducting the

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

interview in a location of their choosing (DOODY & NOONAN, 2013; HAY-

GIBSON, 2009; MALTA, 2009; MINICHIELLO, ARONI & HAYS, 2008;
OPDENAKKER, 2006). [10]

Telephone interviewing likely reduces these costs (ADAMS, KHAN, RAESIDE &
WHITE, 2007; CARR & WORTH, 2001; CHAPPLE, 1999; DINHAM, 1993;
GARBETT & McCORMACK, 2001; IRVINE, DREW & SAINSBURY, 2012;
LECHUGA, 2012; NOVICK, 2008; PRIDEMORE, DAMPHOUSSE & MOORE,
2005; STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004; VOGL, 2013). First, the time needed to
travel is eliminated (ELMIR, SCHMIED, JACKSON & WILKES, 2011). This led
TRIER-BIENIEK (2012) to describe telephone interviews as "a more time-efficient
and researcher-friendly tool for conducting interviews" (p.630). Second, telephone
costs may not be paid directly by the interviewer but instead by an academic
department, corporation, or grant. Third, several researchers suggest that
telephone interviews may be somewhat shorter than face-to-face interviews,
reducing the time cost (GARBETT & McCORMACK, 2001; IRVINE, 2011; SHUY,
2002; STEPHENS, 2007; SWEET, 2002; contra, see STURGES & HANRAHAN,
2004 and VOGL, 2013). IRVINE (2011) found that the difference in length was
due to less respondent speech in the telephone mode, though VOGL (2013)
found no substantive differences in her research. [11]

Another significant aspect of the interview context is the geographical distribution

of respondents. Often, face-to-face interviews are limited to a local geographical
area, due to the time and financial constraints described above (MINICHIELLO et
al., 2008; SWEET, 2002). Therefore, interviewing by telephone can often extend
the geographical range (and diversity) of respondents (ADAMS et al., 2007;
DINHAM, 1993; GLOGOWSKA et al., 2011; HOLT 2010; KNOX & BURKARD,
2009; NOVICK 2008; SMITH, 2005; STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004; WILSON &
EDWARDS, 2003). Interviewing can be expanded to national or even
international areas (FULTON, 2009; MILLER, 1995). OPDENAKKER (2006)
noted that telephone interviews can be beneficial for wide geographical access,
for hard to reach populations (TAUSIG & FREEMAN, 1988; WILSON &
EDWARDS, 2003), for dangerous or politically sensitive areas, and for access to
closed sites such as hospitals or prisons. Furthermore, "interacting from separate
physical locations can be more convenient for both parties, letting each stay in a
familiar and safe environment" (KAZMER & XIE, 2008, p.265). [12]

Sometimes research addresses particularly sensitive or controversial topics;

these often form important, engaging, and valuable research questions, but
securing honest, detailed contributions from respondents may be difficult.
PRIDEMORE et al. (2005) noted that "selecting the appropriate survey mode is
crucial since privacy has an effect on response bias when asking questions about
sensitive information or socially undesirable behaviors" (p.977). These research
questions have the potential to be embarrassing or awkward, which may make
them particularly difficult to discuss in a face-to-face setting (DOODY &
NOONAN, 2013; VOGL, 2013). Several researchers have suggested that the
awkwardness may be reduced in telephone interviews, due to an increase in
social distance (CARR & WORTH, 2001; DINHAM, 1993; GLOGOWSKA et al.,

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

2011; IRVINE et al., 2012; LECHUGA, 2012; MEALER & JONES, 2014; TAUSIG
& FREEMAN, 1988). SMITH (2005), however, stated that this remains somewhat
unclear, and CHAPPLE (1999) suggested that this varied depending upon the
topic. MALTA (2009) noted that her research was better able to "cover sensitive
topics with more perceived anonymity" via telephone interviews (§8). Likewise,
DINHAM (1993) suggests that there is "less threat posed by [a] 'faceless
researcher'" in telephone interviews (p.25). [13]

Technology problems are somewhat more likely with telephone interviews, as

there is simply more technology involved. Calls may be dropped or may have
poor sound quality, for example. There may be difficulties determining how to
record the telephone call. STEPHENS (2007) reported that "holding the
telephone introduced more unanticipated problems" than any other aspect of the
interviews, due to the complexities of juggling the telephone, a writing implement,
paper, and a drink. The concern that participants may not be familiar with
telephone technology, however, has been greatly alleviated in the past two
decades (CARR & WORTH, 2001; NOVICK, 2008). In face-to-face interviewing,
technology problems would likely result from problems with the recording device
(KAZMER & XIE, 2008). Extraneous noise (such as lawn mowing or a television)
can affect both modes (ibid.). [14]

Interviewer safety is often overlooked in discussions of qualitative interviews, but

it may be of particular concern, depending on the research questions. As some
researchers note, interviewer safety may be endangered in a face-to-face
interview, depending on the location and time of the meeting (WILSON, 2012).
Such danger can include sexual harassment or impropriety (WILSON, ROE &
WRIGHT, 1998). In contrast, telephone interviews typically have less potential for
danger, as interviews can be conducted from a known safe location, such as the
interviewer's office or home (SHUY, 2002; STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004). [15]

Many qualitative research texts recommend note-taking 1 to supplement audio

recording of an interview. In the face-to-face mode, notes can be used to capture
nonverbal elements of the interview. However, note-taking may be obtrusive and
distracting to the respondent (KNOX & BURKARD, 2009). In contrast, note-taking
will be unobtrusive during a telephone interview (NOVICK, 2008; STURGES &
HANRAHAN, 2004; SWEET, 2002), as the respondent cannot see the note-
taking (though some researchers note that concentrating on a telephone call and
taking notes at the same time can be difficult; STEPHENS, 2007). [16]

There are also interaction effects to consider (DOODY & NOONAN, 2013; KNOX
& BURKARD, 2009; RYAN et al., 2009; TIETEL, 2000). WILSON et al. (1998)
note that "face-to-face interviews are particularly prone to the problems of
reactivity, in that respondents may express socially acceptable, rather than
authentic, attitudes" and responses (p.315). The observable characteristics of the
interviewer, such as class, race, and gender, may influence the respondent.

1 Some methodologists oppose recording interviews. For example, in grounded theory research,
interviews are usually not recorded; instead, the researcher relies on extensive notes taken
during and immediately after each interview (GLASER & STRAUSS, 1967).

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

These issues, of course, are much less evident in telephone interviews

(TAYLOR, 2002). HOLT (2010), however, suggested that "the lack of more
tangible information [such as race, class, or gender markers] to enable the
participants and researchers to orient towards each other may be an issue"
(p.116). [17]

Finally, interviewers should consider the capture of nonverbal language as

another element of interviewer context (though the importance of nonverbal
language will vary from project to project). In the face-to-face mode, nonverbal
language and cues can be very rich, including dress, body language,
mannerisms, and so on. As OPDENAKKER (2006) noted, these aspects "can
give the interviewer a lot of extra information that can be added to the verbal
answer of the interviewee" (§7; see also ADAMS et al., 2007; CHAPPLE, 1999;
GARBETT & McCORMACK, 2001; GENOVESE, 2004; MALTA, 2009; SHUY,
2002; WILSON, 2012). There will be more nonverbal data to collect in the face-
to-face mode, though this nonverbal data can be ambiguous, leading to
misinterpretation. BURNARD (1994) explained that "'body language' or non-
verbal aspects of behaviour is [sic] not so easily interpreted as is sometimes
supposed and it is tempting to 'read in' meaning to other people's behaviour"
(p.68; see also IRVINE et al., 2012; NOVICK, 2008; TAUSIG & FREEMAN,
1988). [18]

In the telephone mode, most types of nonverbal language are inaccessible

(OPDENAKKER, 2006; see MEALER & JONES, 2014, for a description of four
types of nonverbal communication, two of which are lost in the telephone mode).
Interviewers may still make note of pauses, tone of voice, and similar
paralanguage cues (MEALER & JONES, 2014; STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004;
TAYLOR, 2002). For example, TAUSIG and FREEMAN (1988) noted that "the
telephone interviewer relied heavily on such discernible auditory cues as verbal
tension or anger, manifested by sarcasm, curt responses, slowed speech, difficult
articular, sadness, tears, or rapid, compulsive speech" and "silence at times
indicated thoughtfulness or signaled anger, depression, or other discomfort"
(p.424). Overall, though, there will be much less nonverbal language in telephone
interviews and less ambiguous data that can be misinterpreted (LECHUGA,
2012). NOVICK (2008) noted that much qualitative research relies heavily on
transcripts and nonverbal data "may not actually be used" (p.395). HOLT (2010)
also explained that the lack of nonverbal cues "means that, unlike in face-to-face
interactions, everything had to be articulated by both the participants and myself.
This need for full articulation meant that a much richer text was produced" for
analysis (p.116; see also VOGL, 2013). [19]

These components are summarized in Table 2. As this table illustrates, one mode
is not necessarily superior to the other when considering the interviewer context.
Both face-to-face and telephone interviewing have their strengths and
weaknesses. Researchers should select the interview mode most appropriate
and useful for their particular project, based on which contextual components are
most important and relevant.

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Components Face-to-face (F2F) mode Telephone mode

Time and financial costs Usually intensive; travel may Can be less time intensive
add to costs than F2F; lower costs (no
travel)

Geographical distribution Often limited geographically National and international

to local area access possible and easier

Sensitive or controversial May be difficult in F2F; May be less awkward than

topics potential to be embarrassing F2F
or awkward

Technology problems Less likely to have Calls can be dropped;

problems, except with possible recording problems
recording device

Interviewer safety Can be endangered Low danger; interviews can

depending upon location be made from office, home,
and time of meeting or other location as
appropriate

Note taking Can be obtrusive; can Can be done unobtrusively;

capture non-verbal may present logistical
language and cues problems juggling multiple
items

Nonverbal language and Usually very rich; can Most types unavailable; can
cues include dress, body note pauses, hesitations,
language, mannerisms, etc.; etc.; less information, but
more data to be interpreted; less potential bias and
can be misinterpreted misinterpretation

Table 2: Summary of interviewer context for two interview modes [20]

3. The Respondent Context

In addition to the interviewer context, there are several other factors, centered on
the respondents, which ought to be considered when determining the most
appropriate interview mode for a particular research project. SHUY (2002)
correctly noted that "most of the research on interviewing has concentrated on
the interviewer rather than on the respondent ... very little is said about
respondents' language and comfort" (p.538). This section rectifies the gap in the
literature by paying explicit attention to the respondent context. As KNOX and
BURKARD (2009) argued, "participant characteristics also influence the actual
interview process and relationship" (p.570). Here, the most salient components,
as identified in the literature, are discussed (see Table 3).

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Scheduling
Respondent anonymity
Privacy / invasiveness
Stigmatized/ marginalized groups
Sensitive or controversial topics
Respondent empowerment

Table 3: Components of respondent context [21]

Scheduling the interview—at an amenable time and location—is often particularly

important to respondents (ELMIR et al., 2011). In the face-to-face mode,
participants may feel some social pressure to be available and to meet at the
agreed-upon time and place. In turn, this may yield a lower no-show rate (SHUY,
2002). Telephone interviews may be easier to reschedule, which respondents
may favor (NOVICK, 2008). In TRIER-BIENIEK's (2012) research, women who
were working or taking care of young children were able to schedule brief times
for a telephone interview that may not have been possible with face-to-face
interviews. TRIER-BIENIEK noted that conducting telephone interviews "was
opening up opportunities for those women to participate who may not have had
the time or ability to participate had the interviews been in person" (p.635).
Scholars generally agree there is less social pressure with the telephone, making
it easier to reschedule—but also easier to cancel (or to just not answer the
telephone; BURKE & MILLER, 2001). Therefore, the telephone interviewing mode
may have a higher dropout rate. Some writers have also said that it may be
easier for respondents to avoid time conflicts with telephone interviewing
(STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004). VOGL (2013) noted that "the telephone
potentially suggests a greater sense of control over the communication process
for respondents" (p.138). [22]

A second contextual component, from the respondent perspective, is

confidentiality and anonymity. Anonymity, in a research context, means that either
the project does not collect identifying information or the identifying information
cannot be linked to subjects' responses. Confidentiality means that researchers
may be able to identify individual respondents' responses, but every effort is
made to keep this information from anyone not connected to the project.
Anonymity is particularly difficult in qualitative research; thus, most research
projects focus on providing a high level of confidentiality to respondents. [23]

It is difficult to hide one's identity from the researcher in face-to-face interviews.

Confidentiality protections are dependent upon interviewer integrity and data
protection methods, as well as the sensitivity with which the interview location
was selected. These confidentiality concerns can decrease disclosure from the
respondent. Anonymity is not truly possible in a face-to-face mode, as the
researcher can view and identify the respondent. [24]

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

In contrast, with the telephone mode, there is higher confidentiality and

anonymity, or at least a perception of more anonymity (GLOGOWSKA et al.,
2011; LECHUGA, 2012; SWEET, 2002; WILSON et al., 1998). Because the
researcher cannot view the respondent, much identifiable information is left
uncollected unless it is specifically asked about. Respondents have more control
over selecting their location for the interview spot, so they can choose a place
from which they can have a telephone discussion with no fear of interference or
eavesdropping (NOVICK, 2008; TRIER-BIENIEK, 2012). This perception of
stronger anonymity can lead to more disclosure (LECHUGA, 2012; STURGES &
HANRAHAN, 2004). [25]

On a related note, many respondents may be concerned about their privacy.

Face-to-face interviews may feel more invasive, as they are often conducted in
the respondents' home or office (STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004). In addition,
respondents cannot hide their nonverbal language. The use of technology can
either raise or reduce surveillance fears, depending upon the respondents. HOLT
(2010), for example, suggested that telephone interviews "may at least reduce
the intensity of the 'surveillant other' by not intruding" into the respondents' homes
(p.115; see also SWEET, 2002; TAUSIG & FREEMAN, 1988). Recording
technology, typically used in both face-to-face and telephone interviews, may
increase these concerns about surveillance and anonymity. [26]

The context of stigmatized or marginalized groups is difficult to interpret, as well.

Face-to-face interviews may be more or less difficult for marginalized groups,
depending on social pressures and cues. For example, those who are hard of
hearing may find face-to-face interviews more enjoyable (CHAPPLE, 1999;
IRVINE, 2011), because they can read the interviewer's lips and nonverbal
language to aid in their understanding. Other marginalized groups may feel
intimidated by the formality of a face-to-face interview, compared to the more
casual use of the telephone (STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004; TAYLOR, 2002). [27]

Telephone interviews, by increasing physical and social distance between the

interviewer and the respondent, may improve responses from marginalized
groups (TAYLOR, 2002; TRIER-BIENIEK, 2012). This may make telephone
interviews easier for participants with a different primary language (i.e., non-
native English speakers, in the US context) (CARR & WORTH, 2011). Individuals
who have less mobility may find it easier to participate in a telephone interview
rather than traveling to a face-to-face interview (MINICHIELLO et al., 2008).
GLOGOWSKA et al. (2011) argued that telephone interviews have "the potential
to enfranchise sections of the populations who might otherwise go unheard"
(p.26). [28]

Although sensitive and controversial topics were discussed as part of the

interviewer context, this component is also part of the respondent context.
Interviewers should consider how respondents might feel about answering
questions dealing with controversial topics. Respondents in a face-to-face setting
may feel uncomfortable or embarrassed addressing sensitive topics (CARR &
WORTH, 2011; WILSON et al., 1998). They may feel pressure to conform to

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

social expectations and may under-report certain behaviors or thoughts.

However, SHUY (2002) suggested that "face-to-face interaction compels more
small talk, politeness routines, joking, nonverbal communication, and asides in
which people can more fully express their humanity" (p.541). He argued that
these aspects of face-to-face interviewing will lead to respondents opening up
more. [29]

With telephone interviews, the discomfort that some respondents feel in face-to-
face settings may be eased due to the social distance (CHAPPLE, 1999;
GLOGOWSKA et al., 2011; STURGES & HANRAHAN, 2004; TRIER-BIENIEK,
2012; VOGL, 2013). Respondents may feel less social pressure and thus may
answer such questions more accurately and with less bias (DINHAM, 1993;
DOODY & NOONAN, 2013; FENIG, LEVAV, KOHN & YELIN, 1993; KAZMER &
XIE, 2008; KNOX & BURKARD, 2009). IRVINE (2011) explained that "the greater
anonymity and less intensity afforded by a telephone encounter ... might be
preferable to participants where topics are of a sensitive nature" (p.203; see also
ELMIR et al., 2011; MEALER & JONES, 2014; VOGL, 2013). As a result of her
study, VOGL (2013) concluded that "the assumption of less open and honest
responses to sensitive questions in telephone interviews could not be supported"
(p.156). [30]

Finally, several scholars have touched on various aspects of respondent

empowerment, or finding ways to share more power with the respondent.
Respondents may feel more empowered in the face-to-face setting, in which they
can see and respond to the interviewer (SHUY, 2002). They can recognize when
the interviewer is confused, indifferent, or not paying attention, and address these
concerns directly (STEPHENS, 2007). On the other hand, the potential loss of
face may be stronger in face-to-face interviews, leading to respondents feeling
social pressure. There is less chance of loss of face in telephone interviews,
which some respondents may find empowering (TAYLOR, 2002; VOGL, 2013).
TRIER-BIENIEK (2012) argued that the use of telephone interviews "allows the
researcher to re-define relationships between research and participant,
particularly when considering the 'sender-receiver' dynamic" (p.631). Similarly,
MEALER and JONES (2014) noted that "there is a difference in power between
researcher and participant that can be ameliorated through virtual space" (p.35).
In addition, as discussed above, telephone interviewing can give respondents a
bit more control over scheduling and location (NOVICK, 2008; STEPHENS, 2007;
SWEET, 2002). SMITH (2005) added that, in telephone interviews, "the physical
appearance of both the interviewer and the subject has less influence, which
might help them to feel more at ease and focused on the conversation" (p.36; see
also TAUSIG & FREEMAN, 1988). [31]

These components of the respondent context are summarized in Table 4. Again,

it is clear that considering the respondent context does not automatically privilege
telephone or face-to-face interviewing modes. Rather, the respondent context
presents a complicated image of social pressure and expectations. To fully
consider the respondent context, interviewers must be aware of how these social
pressures may affect their participants. There are few definitive answers here, as

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

social pressure varies greatly from population to population, group to group, and
situation to situation. Reflecting upon respondent context, however, may increase
the response rate and the richness of the interviews.

Components Face-to-face (F2F) mode Telephone mode

Scheduling Participant may feel Easier to reschedule via

pressure to be available; telephone; less social
may have lower dropout rate pressure; easier to avoid
time conflicts; easier to
cancel

Respondent anonymity / Difficult to hide identity from Perception of higher

confidentiality interviewer; anonymity anonymity; can lead to more
dependent on interviewer disclosure
integrity and data protection;
can decrease disclosure

Privacy / invasiveness Can be invasive to Can either reduce or

participant (often in their increase invasiveness and
home/ office); F2F can be surveillance fears
less invasive than
technology; cannot hide
non-verbal language

Stigmatized / marginalized May be more or less difficult By increasing distance from

groups for marginalized individuals, interviewer, may improve
depending on social responses from
pressures and cues marginalized individuals

Sensitive or controversial May be uncomfortable or May ease discomfort or

topics embarrassing; may conform awkwardness; may improve
to social expectations; may accuracy of reporting
under-report

Respondent empowerment Can see and respond to More control; easier to

interviewer; social pressure reschedule; less chance of
(potential loss of face) more loss of face
evident in F2F

Table 4: Summary of respondent context for two interview modes [32]

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

4. Discussion

By considering the interviewer and respondent contexts, researchers can more

thoughtfully select the most appropriate and useful interview mode. For example,
a researcher studying a sensitive topic will want to consider which mode is more
likely to yield the type and quality of information she seeks. In both the researcher
and the respondent context, we see that potentially awkward or embarrassing
topics may be more fruitfully addressed in the telephone mode. [33]

Numerous studies have utilized telephone interviewing, yet very few have
reflected upon the decision of which interview mode to use. As this article
demonstrates, there are many facets to such a decision. Both the interviewer and
the respondent context need to be considered thoughtfully to choose the
interview mode that is most appropriate for the research project. For many
research projects, telephone interviews may be highly appropriate. Research that
studies marginalized groups may benefit from telephone interviews. Research
that calls for responses from a large geographical area would likely be more cost
effective if conducted via telephone. [34]

This conceptualization of the interviewer and respondent modes can be

expanded upon in future research. First, there are several other modes that can
be considered, including e-mail (CISNEROS-PUEBLA et al., 2004; MEHO, 2006),
VoIP (HAY-GIBSON, 2009), video, messaging systems (OPDENAKKER, 2006),
text, and so on. Computer-mediated interviews, likewise, could benefit from this
perspective. Future work can expand upon the work done here, and consider the
interview context and respondent context for each of these interview modes. [35]

Other aspects could be studied as well. For example, the issues of data security
and data management are quite important but were not addressed in the current
literature. It seems that the data security of face-to-face interviews is strong and
consistent, dependent upon the physical security precautions taken by the
interviewer. For example, the data may be stored on password-protected
equipment or kept in locked office equipment. Most data security issues for
telephone interviewing are similar, with one exception. Depending upon the
technology used, it may be possible to intercept telephone data, thus potentially
compromising respondent confidentiality. Further research needs to examine this
component of interviewer context. [36]

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

5. Conclusion

The selection of interviewing mode is frequently made without much explicit

forethought. In the current literature, researchers often mention they conducted
telephone interviews without explanation of the reasoning for this. However, as
this article argues, the interview mode should be thoughtfully considered and
evaluated. In particular, researchers should consider both the interviewer context
and the respondent context. There are several components to each context,
some of which are likely to be more or less salient depending upon the project at
hand. By reviewing and thoughtfully considering the interviewer and respondent
contexts, researchers can make an informed, thoughtful, defensible selection of
interview mode, which should help advance their research projects. [37]

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Stacy KOWALCZYK and the participants of the 2013 International
Conference on Qualitative Research for valuable feedback.

References

Adams, John; Khan, Hafiz T.A.; Raeside, Robert & White, David (2007). Research methods for
graduate business and social science students. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Burke, Lisa A. & Miller, Monica K. (2001). Phone interviewing as a means of data collection:
Lessons learned and practical recommendations. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 2(2), Art. 7, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs010271
[Accessed: May 3, 2016].
Burnard, Phillip (1994). The telephone interview as a data collection method. Nurse Education
Today, 14, 67-72.
Carr, Eloise C. & Worth, Allison (2001). The use of the telephone interview for research. NT
Research, 6(1), 511-524.
Chapple, Alison (1999). The use of telephone interviewing for qualitative research. Nurse
Researcher, 6(3), 85-93.
Cisneros-Puebla, Cesar A.; Faux, Robert & Mey, Günter (2004). Qualitative researchers—stories
told, stories shared: The storied nature of qualitative research. An introduction to the special issue:
FQS Interviews I. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 5(3),
Art. 37, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0403370 [Accessed: May 3, 2016].
Dinham, Stephen (1993). The use of the telephone interview in educational research: One case
study. Education Research and Perspectives, 20(1), 17-26.
Doody, Owen & Noonan, Maria (2013). Preparing and conducting interviews to collect data. Nurse
Researcher, 20(5), 28-32.
Elmir, Rakime; Schmied, Virginia; Jackson, Debra & Wilkes, Lesley (2011). Interviewing people
about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 12-16.
Fenig, Shmuel; Levav, Itzhak; Kohn, Robert & Yelin, Nava (1993). Telephone vs. face-to-face
interviewing in a community psychiatric survey. American Journal of Public Health, 83(6), 896-898.
Fontana, Andrea & Frey, James H. (2000). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated
text. In Norman K. Denzin & Yvonne S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.645-
672). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fulton, Crystal (2009). The pleasure principle: The power of positive affect in information seeking.
Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(3), 245-261.
Garbett, Rob & McCormack, Brenda (2001). The experience of practice development: An
exploratory telephone interview study. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 10, 94-102.

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Genovese, Barbara J. (2004). Thinking inside the box: The art of telephone interviewing. Field
Methods, 16(2), 215-226.
Gerson, Kathleen & Horowitz, Ruth (2002). Observations and interviewing: Options and choices in
qualitative research. In Tim May (Ed.), Qualitative research in action (pp.201-224). London: Sage.
Glaser, Barney G. & Strauss, Anselm L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
Glogowska, Margaret; Young, Pat & Lockyer, Lesley (2011). Propriety, process and purpose:
Considerations of the use of the telephone interview methods in an educational research study.
Higher Education, 62, 17-26.
Hay-Gibson, Naomi V. (2009). Interviews via VoIP: Benefits and disadvantages within a PhD study
of SMEs. Library and Information Research, 33(105), 39-49.
Holt, Amanda (2010). Using the telephone for narrative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative
Research, 10(1), 113-121.
Irvine, Annie (2011). Duration, dominance and depth in telephone and face-to-face interviews: A
comparative exploration. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 10(3), 202-220,
https://ejournals.library.ualberta.ca/index.php/IJQM/article/view/10276 [Accessed: May 3, 2016].
Irvine, Annie; Drew, Paul & Sainsbury, Roy (2012). "Am I not answering your questions properly?"
Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face
interviews. Qualitative Research, 13(1), 87-106.
Kalekin-Fishman, Devorah (2002). Looking at interviewing: From "just talk" to meticulous method.
Review Essay. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(4), Art.
38, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0204384 [Accessed: May 3, 2016].
Kazmer, Michelle M. & Xie, Bo (2008). Qualitative interviewing in internet studies: Playing with the
media, playing with the method. Information, Communication, and Society, 11(2), 257-278.
Knox, Sarah & Burkard, Alan W. (2009). Qualitative research interviews. Psychotherapy Research,
19(4-5), 566-575.
Kvale, Steinar (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lechuga, Vincente M. (2012). Exploring culture from a distance: The utility of telephone interviews
in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(3), 251-268.
Malta, Sue (2009). Qualitative interviewing of older adults: Offline versus online methods.
Proceedings of the 8th National Emerging Researchers in Ageing Conference "A new era for
ageing research: What's in your toolkit?" (ERA 2009), Healthy Ageing Research Unit, Monash
University, Melbourne, Australia, October 23, 2009,
http://researchbank.swinburne.edu.au/vital/access/manager/Repository/swin:14288?exact=sm_title
%3A%22Qualitative+interviewing+of+older+adults%3A+offline+versus+online+methods%22
[Accessed: May 5, 2016].
Mealer, Meredith & Jones, Jacqueline (2014). Methodological and ethical issues related to
qualitative telephone interviews on sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 21(4), 32-37.
Meho, Lokman I. (2006). E-mail interviewing in qualitative research: A methodological discussion.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1), 1284-1295.
Merriam, Sharan B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, Carol (1995). In-depth interviewing by telephone: Some practical considerations. Evaluation
and Research in Education, 9(1), 29-38.
Minichiello, Victor; Aroni, Rosalie & Hays, Terrence N. (2008). In-depth interviewing: Principles,
techniques, analysis (3rd ed.). Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.
Myers, Michael D. & Newman, Michael (2007). The qualitative interview in IS research: Examining
the craft. Information and Organization, 17(1), 2-26.
Novick, Gina (2008). Is there a bias against telephone interviews in qualitative research? Research
in Nursing and Health, 31, 391-398.
Opdenakker, Raymond (2006). Advantages and disadvantages of four interview techniques in
qualitative research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4),
Art. 11, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604118 [Accessed: May 3, 2016].

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Patton, Michael Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Pridemore, William A.; Damphousse, Kelly R. & Moore, Rebecca K. (2005). Obtaining sensitive
information from a wary population: A comparison of telephone and face-to-face surveys of welfare
recipients in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 61(5), 976-984.
Ryan, Francis; Coughlan, Michael & Cronin, Patricia (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research:
The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16(6), 309-314.
Schultze, Ulrike & Avital, Michel (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information
systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1-16.
Seidman, Irving (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education
and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.
Shuy, Roger W. (2002). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In Jaber F. Gubrium & James A.
Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp.537-555). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, Elizabeth M. (2005). Telephone interviewing in healthcare research: A summary of the
evidence. Nurse Researcher, 12(3), 32-41.
Stephens, Neil (2007). Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: Telephone and face-to-face
interviews with microeconomists. Qualitative Research, 7(2), 203-216.
Sturges, Judith E. & Hanrahan, Kathleen J. (2004). Comparing telephone and face-to-face
qualitative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), 107-118.
Sweet, Linda (2002). Telephone interviewing: Is it compatible with interpretive phenomenological
research? Contemporary Nurse, 12(1), 58-68.
Tausig, Jane E. & Freeman, Ellen W. (1988). The next best thing to being there: Conducting the
clinical research interview by telephone. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 58(3), 418-427.
Taylor, Anthea (2002). "I'll call you back on my mobile": A critique of the telephone interview with
adolescent boys. Westminister Studies in Education, 25(1), 19-34.
Tietel, Erhard (2000). The interview as a relational space. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /
Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2), Art. 26, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-
fqs0002260 [Accessed: May 3, 2016].
Trier-Bieniek, Adrienne (2012). Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for
qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research, 12(6), 630-644.
Vogl, Susanne (2013). Telephone versus face-to-face interviews: Mode effect on semistructured
interviews with children. Sociological Methodology, 43(1), 133-177.
Warren, Carol A.B. (2002). Qualitative interviewing. In Jaber F. Gubrium and James A. Holstein
(Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context and method (pp.83-101). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Wilson, Kate; Roe, Brenda & Wright, L. (1998). Telephone or face-to-face interviews? A decision
made on the basis of a pilot study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35, 314-321.
Wilson, Valerie & Edwards, Lynne (2003). Telephone interviewing in educational settings.
Spotlights: The Scottish Research Council for Research in Education, 84, 1-4.
Wilson, Virginia (2012). Research methods: Interviews. Evidence Based Library and Information
Practice, 7(2), 96-98.

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/
FQS 17(2), Art. 15, Shannon M. Oltmann:
Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the Interviewer and Respondent Contexts

Author

Shannon M. OLTMANN is an assistant professor Contact:

at the School of Information Science at the
University of Kentucky. She studies intellectual Shannon M. Oltmann
freedom, censorship, and information policy. School of Information Science
College of Communication & Information
320 Lucille Little Library Building
Lexington KY 40502
USA
E-mail: [email protected]

Citation

Oltmann, Shannon M. (2016). Qualitative Interviews: A Methodological Discussion of the

Interviewer and Respondent Contexts [37 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 17(2), Art. 15,
http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs1602156.

FQS http://www.qualitative-research.net/