Skip to main content

Online interviews 1: Introduction

The qualitative interview is perhaps the most popular method in social science. But online interviews are still relatively marginal, especially ‘real time’ ones. In a short series of posts to be published within the next week, I will suggests ways in which the Internet both challenges and furthers the interview method.

Discussing the validity of online research raises basic questions: Are online methods merely extending offline methods, or should they be seen as departing from them? This is related to the fundamental challenge in social science of inquiring a constantly changing world. Are the offline methods that have been cultivated over decades still adequate in a complex information society?

Depending on what one believes to be the answer, different threats to validity are brought to the forefront. For example, if online interviews are seen as merely an extension in which rapport still needs to be built in the conventional way, media richness is a key factor. If, on the other hand, online methods are seen as a way to interrogate new social phenomena, learning the online “netlingo” or netiquette becomes key to research credibility.

Another good example is that of anonymity online. In the qualitative research tradition, face–to-face interaction is the gold standard. Not knowing the identity of the interviewee poses a major threat to validity.

On the other hand, the opportunity to remain anonymous online might result in more frank answers. What is more, the soundness of a face-to-face preference has been called into question by Walther (1995), who shows through experimental research that asynchronous text-mediated relationships can be just as intimate, sometimes even strengthening efficiency and trust, especially in continuous interaction.

O'Connor et al. (2008) identify ”interview design, the building of rapport, the virtual venue and research ethics” as four major challenges in online interviewing. Leaving ethics to be treated elsewhere, I will address the three other themes in blog posts to follow shortly. To my mind, however, the building of rapport has a lot to do with the configuration of the 'virtual venue', so my alternative headlines are sampling, textual mediation and shifts in temporality.


References:
O'Connor, H., C. Madge, R. Shaw, and J. Wellens. 2008. “Internet-based Interviewing.” in The Handbook of Online Research Methods, edited by Nigel G. Fielding, Raymond M. Lee, and Grant Blank. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 

Walther, Joseph B. 1995. “Relational Aspects of Computer-Mediated Communication: Experimental Observations over Time.” Organization Science 6:186-203. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Official statistics: 51% of 16-74 year old Danes use Facebook

In making a case for why my MSc dissertation here at the Oxford Internet Institute should be concerned with something as hyped and mundane as Facebook, I've been looking for numbers on the Danish social media landscape.

On the English-language web, the commercial SocialBakers Facebook statistics suggest that 49% of the Danish population are on Facebook.

This rather non-transparent number can now be compared with a recent report by Statistics Denmark, suggesting that 51% of 16-74 year old Danes have a Facebook account. The second-largest online social network service in Denmark, LinkedIn, is trailing far behind at 8%. Most surprisingly perhaps, a mere 3% of the surveyed age cohort use Twitter.

As such, there are compelling quantitative reasons for choosing Facebook over e.g. Twitter for a case study of how social media reflect life in Denmark. Another recent survey produced for a Danish daily confirms this: A tiny elite of the 319 most active Twitter users in Denmark write half of …

Two (used) comments on Gillespie's new chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms"

I'm in Paris this semester, as a visiting doctoral student at the Center for the Sociology of Innovation (CSI) at Ecole des Mines and at the médialab at Sciences Po. 
Apart from finding myself in the middle of two very lively research communities, I've also been so lucky that a series of cross-institutional seminars on Digital Methods are taking place in Paris this spring.
The last seminar was on "Transformative interaction: web effects on social dynamics", for which I volunteered to prepare a brief comment on one of the selected readings, namely Tarleton Gillespie's chapter "The Relevance of Algorithms", forthcoming in an edited volume on "Media Technologies" to be published by MIT Press. (The full chapter has been uploaded by Gillespie here).
Since I prepared the comments in writing, and since they did in fact spark some discussion, I've decided that it might be appropriate to recycle them as a blog post. Here goes:

Introducing: The Twitter-thing!

Context: The Twitter-thing is the (awkward?) translation into English of 'Twittertinget' - a project I worked on last year with two Danish colleagues, Irina Papazu (CBS) and Tobias Bornakke (Uni. of Copenhagen) in collaboration with the Danish newspaper Politiken. The Twitter-thing is a tool that draws on TCAT in order to build a network visualisation of how Danish MPs use hashtags on Twitter. Here follows my abstract for the upcoming Data Publics conference in Lancaster, where I'll be exhibiting the Twitter-thing.


Parliaments could seem to be highly issue-agnostic places. All sorts of problems move in and out of these large and expensive devices (Dányi 2015), while the membership stays more or less the same in-between elections. But as issues are taken up and left behind by parliaments, they also make cuts in the parliament in the sense that specific sets of parliamentarians become attached to specific issues. The aim of the Twitter-thing tool is to trace these cuts and v…