This is a repository copy of 'Am I not answering your questions properly?' : Clarification,
adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews.
White Rose Research Online URL for this paper:
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/76712/
Version: Accepted Version
Article:
Irvine, A orcid.org/0000-0002-6082-5675, Drew, Paul and Sainsbury, Roy Derek
orcid.org/0000-0002-1217-6818 (2013) 'Am I not answering your questions properly?' :
Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face
interviews. Qualitative Research. pp. 87-106. ISSN 1741-3109
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086
eprints@whiterose.ac.uk
https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/
Reuse
Items deposited in White Rose Research Online are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved unless
indicated otherwise. They may be downloaded and/or printed for private study, or other acts as permitted by
national copyright laws. The publisher or other rights holders may allow further reproduction and re-use of
the full text version. This is indicated by the licence information on the White Rose Research Online record
for the item.
Takedown
If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by
emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request.
Page 1 of 32
‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’
Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured
telephone and face-to-face interviews
Annie Irvine*, Paul Drew**, Roy Sainsbury*
*
Social Policy Research Unit, University of York
** Department of Sociology, University of York
This is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of the article, Irvine, A., Drew, P. and Sainsbury,
R. (2013) '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. Available online at:
http://qrj.sagepub.com/content/13/1/87.refs
Page 2 of 32
Introduction
This article presents findings from a study that explored interactional difference between
semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted by telephone or face-to-face.
Methodological text books have traditionally advised that the telephone mode is not well
suited to the task of qualitative interviewing (e.g. Gillham, 2005; Legard et al, 2003; Rubin
and Rubin, 1995). In particular, the lack of face-to-face contact is said to restrict the
development of rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter (Shuy, 2003), elements that are considered
to be important for generating rich qualitative data. However, there are potential advantages
of using the telephone for research interviews, for example, savings in time and travel costs
and greater anonymity around sensitive topics (Chapple, 1999; Kavanaugh and Ayres, 1998;
Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). Therefore, it is not uncommon to find qualitative studies in
various disciplines that have conducted some or all interviews by telephone. However, the
empirical evidence base on what consequences the use of the telephone may have for
interview interactions and the resulting data is currently underdeveloped. As observed by
Sweet (2002: 58), ‘The telephone has found its way into qualitative research processes as a
medium for data collection, but its use has not generated the critical discussion that is
merited’.
In this paper, we do not rehearse the practical and ethical pros and cons of telephone
interviews (for an overview, see Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004). Here we focus in on the
interactional aspects of research interviews conducted by telephone or face to face, drawing
upon empirical research evidence to illuminate some of the differences that may be observed
between the two interview modes. Rather than comparing the substantive content of the
interview conversations, our interest is in the spoken interactional devices that researcher and
interviewee employ in order to pursue and maintain a collaborative and comprehensible
dialogue. We begin with an overview of previous discussion on the interactional effects and
Page 3 of 32
implications of telephone interviews, before outlining the methodology of the present study.
Several aspects of our analysis are then presented, including questions of researcher
responsiveness, interviewees’ attempts to seek confirmation of the relevance of their talk and
requests for clarification of questions posed by the researcher, and the duration of interviews.
This is followed by a discussion of the potential explanations for and implications of the
findings that emerge. Note that this paper focuses on the use of ‘traditional’ telephone
interviews, which do not feature any video- or internet-based visual technology.
Perspectives on interactional difference
This section reviews previous literature which has considered the interactional effects that
might arise when qualitative research interviews are conducted by telephone rather than face-
to-face. Contributions have come from instructional (mainly introductory) text books and also
a number of published researcher accounts of first-hand experiences (Carr and Worth, 2001;
Chapple, 1999; Dicker and Gilbert, 1988; Holt, 2010; Stephens, 2007; Sturges and Hanrahan,
2004; Sweet, 2002; Tausig and Freeman, 1988) and overview or review articles (Burnard,
1994; Novick, 2008).
The most fundamental difference between telephone and face-to-face interviews is the
absence of a visual encounter. This is thought to affect the interaction in a number of ways.
Novick (2008: 395) provides a useful categorisation of the types of ‘data loss or distortion’
that potentially result from the absence of visual cues: firstly, the loss of nonverbal data,
namely body language and facial expressions; secondly, the loss of contextual data, including
the interviewee’s physical characteristics and the interview setting; thirdly, the loss or
distortion of verbal (spoken) data. However, Novick calls into question the assumption that
data loss or distortion in any of these respects is necessarily detrimental to the interaction or
Page 4 of 32
resulting data. Indeed, while the absence of visual information is typically construed in text
books as a disadvantage (e.g. Robson, 2002; Gillham, 2005; Berg, 2007; Cresswell, 2007;
Fielding and Thomas, 2008), researchers giving personal accounts of conducting telephone
interviews tend to offer more nuanced or critical reflections on how the lack of visual cues
affects the interaction in practice.
The brief overview which follows is structured around a number of themes that emerge from
the literature, regarding the ways in which conducting qualitative research interviews by
telephone may potentially affect the social encounter and spoken interaction. These include
effects on: rapport and the ‘naturalness’ of the interaction; comprehension and the
transmission or interpretation of meaning; monitoring of responses and emotions; levels of
interest and attention; and the duration of interviews.
RAPPORT AND NATURALNESS
A prominent theme in the literature is the scope for developing rapport during telephone
interviews. Most often, this is perceived as being more difficult to achieve, requiring
enhanced skills or efforts. For example, Fielding and Thomas (2008: 253) caution that
‘interviewers need very effective communication skills to make the interaction ‘natural’
while keeping an eye on the interview guide and helping respondents stay on topic’.
Meanwhile, Dicker and Gilbert (1998: 68) note that:
Once access has been gained to any potential respondent, either for a face-to-face or
telephone interview, it is necessary to gain their confidence and support. This is
especially true when using the telephone. A telephone conversation with an unknown
interviewer can create a considerable amount of anxiety for the respondent. [emphasis
added]
