'Am I not answering your questions properly?' Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
'Am I not answering your questions properly?' Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/1468794112439086
复制
发表时间：
2013-02-01
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Sainsbury, Roy
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Irvine, Annie;Drew, Paul;Sainsbury, Roy
本文研究了半结构式定性研究访谈中的口语互动，并与电话访谈和面对面访谈进行了比较。它借鉴了最近的实证研究，这些研究阐明了这两种面试模式之间可能观察到的一些差异。研究采用对话分析的方法对访谈互动进行了系统和透明的比较，重点研究了研究者和被访者为了追求和维持一种协作和可理解的对话而使用的口头互动手段。本文首先概述了以往关于电话在定性访谈中的交互作用的讨论。在这里，我们发现，虽然教学文本传统上建议电话模式不太适合定性面试的任务--主要是因为缺乏面对面的接触据说限制了融洽关系的发展和一次自然的接触--但研究人员对进行电话面试的个人描述倾向于提供更细微的或批判性的反思，说明缺乏视觉线索在多大程度上影响了实践中的互动。然后从以下几个方面介绍了实证研究结果：表述和完成、澄清和理解、承认、受访者对其谈话的“充分性”的检查，以及访谈的持续时间。主要研究结果是：面对面访谈中，研究人员对受访者谈话的完成或表述更为常见；电话访谈中，受访者要求澄清的情况略多一些；电话访谈中，研究人员口头确认的频率较低；电话访谈中，受访者对其回答的适当性的检查更为常见；电话访谈的时间往往比面对面采访短。这篇文章讨论了对这些发现的可能解释，同时考虑了一些潜在的影响。
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.