CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 497Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

“Am I not answering your questions properly?” clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews

Open access
Irvine, Annie, Drew, Paul, Sainsbury, Roy·2013·Qualitative Research
DOI 10.1177/1468794112439086
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1468794112439086

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The SCID-I interview was conducted by a trained interviewer via telephone.

    “The interview was conducted by a trained interviewer via telephone (Irvine et al., 2012; Rohde et al., 1997).”

    From A mobile application for panic disorder and agoraphobia: Insights from a multi-methods feasibility study (2020) · cites this paper as Irvine et al., 2012

    The DATA SET section (p. 11) says that some of Irvine et al.’s semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone. It does not identify them as SCID-I interviews or say the interviewer was trained; it also cannot establish how the citing study’s interview was conducted. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Previous studies have demonstrated the validity of telephone-based SCID-I interviews.

    “Previous studies have demonstrated the validity of telephone-based SCID-I interviews [41, 42].”

    From Efficacy of a hybrid online training for panic symptoms and agoraphobia: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. (2014) · cites this paper as [42]

    The DATA SET section (p. 11) says the study examined interactional differences between telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviews, not the validity of telephone interviews. Neither the supplied passages nor searches for SCID-I and telephone diagnostic-interview validity yielded a passage addressing the validity of telephone-based SCID-I interviews. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Drew, P. (2002) 'Comparative analysis of talk -in-interaction in different institutional settings: a sketch', in P. Glen n, C. LeBaron and J. Mandelbaum (eds) Excavating The Taken-For Granted: Essays in Language and Social Interaction , pp. 293 -308. Mawah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  2. Mazeland, H. and ten Have, P. (1996) 'Essential Tensions in (Semi -)open Research Interviews', in I. Maso and F. Wester (eds) The Deliberate Dialogue: Qualitative Perspectives on the Interview . Brussels: VUB University Press. Online version (1998) http://www.pscw.uva.nl/emca/ET.htm
  3. Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. Oxford, Blackwell.
  4. Rubin, H. J. and Rubin, I. S. (1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data (second edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
  5. Shuy, R. W. (2003) 'In -person versus Telephone Interviewing' in Holstein, J. A. and Gubrium, J. F. (eds) Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns , pp. 175 -193. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Qualitative Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-04-05
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
87-106
ISSN
  • 1468-7941 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-3109
DOI
10.1177/1468794112439086
OpenAlex
W2131138340
Cited by
497
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 83 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 10
FWCI
136.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Research (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (ES/H00467X/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
telephone interviews, face-to-face interviews, semi-structured interviews, clarification, interview duration, rapport, visual cues, spoken interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review