Category: Interview

Interview as research method: discussions on digital activism and participation

  By

How to do research on digital activism and digital protests? How to gain knowledge on the connection between online and offline activism? In this blog post, I´ll reflect on two interviews that I conducted recently. I aim to explore interviews as a research method on digital activism.

To understand the digital activism phenomenon and how activists themselves see the correlation between their actions online/offline I considered the semi-structured interview to be a good method. In semi-structured interviews, questions are specified, but the interviewer is free to ask beyond the planned questions. In semi-structured interviews, the participant can answer on their own terms. (Wessels, 2024)

In-person or online?

For the assignment, I conducted two interviews, one in person and the other online. Below, I briefly explain who I interviewed and offer some reflections on the interview itself.

The first interviewee is a person that I briefly met in a demonstration. In the interview, I asked questions like:

  • How often do they take part in offline protests?
  • How often do they share material online, that could be defined as digital activism?
  • How do they feel when taking part in online/offline protests?

We discussed online, but nevertheless, the interview had a good rapport. The interviewee was interested in the topic and was happy to participate.

Perhaps the atmosphere was even too familiar. I noted that I should practice my own researcher role for the next interview.

The interviewee’s answers corresponded to my hypothesis and also my own experiences. I noted that it would be important to have a rich variety of interviewees from different backgrounds, to have diversity in the answers.

In the interview, we discussed participation, how often they participate, and how. In addition to open answers, real data on the topic would have been useful, for example in the form of a survey or by tracking how often a group of people participate in protests or share content on social media.

The second interview was conducted in person. I interviewed a teacher, who works in an NGO that prepares materials for schools on human rights, global citizenship, and participation.

The interviewee mentioned that the introduction to the interview was good and that they felt interested in participating. It was easy to build rapport with the participant. The insights from the interview were an interesting counterpart to an interview I had done before, but the research question and therefore the content of the interview could have been clearer for me.

In my interviews, I didn´t find a difference in the rapport of the interviews depending on online/in-person interviews. Irvine et al. discuss in the article ‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ the assumption that lack of face-to-face contact restricts the development of rapport and “natural” encounters (2012). New technologies allow also remotely done interviews to have face-to-face contact, and as Trier-Bieniek says there is never a guarantee of a rapport between the researcher and a participant in an in-person interview (2012).

I didn´t experience a problem with the rapport, but what I thought about after conducting both interviews is that it might be better to interview people in their own environment. I could have asked the first interviewee to give concrete examples of their own behavior in social media and show their social media accounts and the content they share. In the second interview, I could have asked to see the materials or even take part in one of the lessons they organize in school. This small ethnographic point of view would have given a lot more background information.

The power of the researcher

I was quite surprised at how easy it was to find a suitable participant for my interviews. Even though this was a school assignment I felt that the participants took it seriously and were eager to share their experiences. That reminded me about the role and power that the researchers/interviewers have.

Holstein & Gubrium argue that both participant and interviewer are active in the interview (1995).

Each is involved in meaning-making work. Meaning is not merely elicited by apt questioning nor simply transported through respondent replies; it is actively and communicatively assembled in the interview encounter. Respondents are not so much repositories of knowledge—treasuries of information awaiting excavation—as they are constructors of knowledge in collaboration with interviewers. (Holstein & Gubrium,1995)

If we consider the interview to be a collaborative process, and the result depends on the meaning-making done together it is highly important as a research interviewer to understand your role, biases, and hypotheses and see that those don´t intervene with the result.

There is always a complex power and dependency dynamic in the relationship between the researcher and the research participants (Wessels, 2024). In this case, I was interviewing my peers and by that, I mean that we share the same ethnic background and same status in a society. But even in this setting, I noticed that in the interview context, I had the power to lead the situation, I was the one asking questions, and also all my questions were answered. It is important to understand the power dynamic and reflect on how it is affecting the answers/results.

I think this was the main takeaway for me from this assignment; to practice my researcher role.

 How to use an interview as a research method efficiently?

To conclude my insights, I made these notes for myself for the future.

  • Sharp research questions and interview questions based on that.
  • Ask yourself; what kind of data do you need to gain from the interview? Do you need some data before as background information?
  • Consider carefully the place where you do the interview, is it better to meet in an official office setting or in a place that is related to the topic, or something between?
  • Do you need more than just the answers, or would you like to see the participant’s home/workplace/something else?
  • Remember to be mindful of your researcher role and use your power right.
  • Be open. Participants have the right to know what you are doing and why, also sharing something about your own (professional) background can help in building up the rapport.

Reflection on Interviewing Methods for Communication for Development (C4D)

Image

  By ,

Rome, Italy. La Città dell’Utopia from above.

The participants

As someone currently involved in a journalistic project, when I set out to complete this task, I already knew how difficult, potentially burdensome, even, the whole process could become, especially when you try to make contact with a complete stranger. So, to make things a bit easier for myself, I thought that asking several people I already knew to some extent would maximise my chances of getting the interviews done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Originally, I had contacted four or five potential participants. I finally managed to interview two of them, David and Fabrizio. 

My first interview was a phone interview on October 27th with David, who runs his own company and develops social intervention projects in socioeconomically marginalised communities in Madrid. His work includes educational programs to facilitate Spanish language acquisition for migrant and refugee communities in collaboration with major NGOs in the country, such as CEAR, and initiatives promoting active citizenship. I had originally connected with David while looking for job opportunities in the migration field, so when it came time to reach out for the interview, we already had an established rapport. 

Fabrizio, on the other hand, is the main coordinator of the Rome branch of Service Civil International Italy. Service Civil International is a volunteer organisation that promotes a culture of peace and focuses on climate issues, refugees and migrants, women’s rights, culture, and antimilitarism. They achieve this through work camps, events, training courses, and long-term volunteering programmes, including exchanges across Europe via the European Solidarity Corps and worldwide. In Rome, their main project, La Città dell’Utopia, provides a space for local collectives and NGOs to organise, host events and share ideas. Fabrizio and I met when I was volunteering at La Città dell’Utopia, where our interview took place on November 2. 

The Interviews 

I chose a semi-structured interview format with open-ended questions that allowed space for follow-up. I wanted to create an open dialogue where both participants could express themselves freely and share their perspectives on their jobs. This idea matches Holstein and Gubrium’s argument in The Active Interview (1995), where they see interviews as joint efforts to create meaning instead of just collecting data. 

This approach meant that my conversations with David and Fabrizio felt less like a formal Q&A session and more like a dynamic dialogue. My first question was designed to encourage them to talk about their backgrounds and their connections to their work, which helped to break the ice and create a comfortable atmosphere. Later questions went deeper into the specifics: their roles, the nature of their work, challenges, etc. The questions asked were as followed:

For David:

  • Tell me a bit about yourself and what drew you to this type of work.
  • What are some of the current projects your are working on or involved with?
  • What are some of the biggest challenges you faced? And your biggest achievements?
  • Follow-up question: In your experience, what are some of the most problematic aspects in the field?

For Fabrizio:

  • What inspired you to join Service Civil International, and what drew you to this type of work?
  • Can you share a memorable experience or project that has had a significant impact on you personally?
  • Can you tell me a bit about the main mission and goals of Service Civil International?
  • Follow-up question: How can individuals or communities get involved with SCI, and what impact can they have by supporting your mission?

Establishing Rapport and the Interview Tone with David and Fabrizio

As I mentioned before, I first contacted David while looking for a job. The first contact was made through a family member. Having a previous connection probably helped reduce some initial awkwardness, and made our interaction quite friendly from the beginning. The interview felt positive and conversational. David was open to my questions and felt comfortable talking about his work on projects like educational programs for migrants and citizenship initiatives. This created a space for an honest conversation.

La Città dell’Utopia’s loggia, connecting to the garden and outdoor spaces.

My connection with Fabrizio, on the other hand, had been limited to the workplace. We didn’t work closely or socialise outside of work, which is why I thought of him as a suitable participant. However, he was still familiar to me. I found that this initial familiarity helped establish a rapport similar to my experience with David.  

Our mutual connection helped build a fluid interaction, something that Holstein and Gubrium (1995) describe as essential for active engagement in an interview. The authors emphasise the construction of meaning between the interviewer and interviewee. I found this very helpful as I encouraged both David and Fabrizio to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives.

Anticipated Differences Between In-Person and Phone Interviews

I expected differences in rapport and dynamics between in-person and phone interviews. In-person allows one to read the participant’s body language and non-verbal cues and provides a sense of presence (Trier-Beniek 2012: 636). All this helps to build a positive relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees. It also allows for the collection of visual material, which often complements the final presentation.  

For the phone interview, I decided to prioritise the participant’s needs (ibid.: 641). Initially, I expected it to feel less personal and anticipated potential technical interruptions or challenges in maintaining engagement. Nonetheless, this was far from the truth in this case. As the interview consisted of only three main questions and a follow-up question, it turned out to be quick, convenient for both of us and flowed smoothly.  

Personal Learning and Professional Development

While setting up these interviews, I ran into some unexpected challenges that taught me a lot about recruiting participants and handling the interview process. To begin with, although I knew a few people in the field, finding suitable participants was harder than I originally thought, with many either not responding or unavailable, which made it uncomfortable to keep following up. I realised how much interviews rely on patience and the cooperation of others. On top of that, the Zoom interview with David, the first participant, had to be done over the phone at his request, since he didn’t have time for a video call. This last-minute change meant I had to adjust quickly to a different setup. Even though it turned out to be a very smooth, light-hearted interview, this might not always be the case. Delays and last-minute changes can be very stressful when you have to meet deadlines in a work or academic context, which might make it an unsuitable method in some situations.

Photography Exhibition at La Città dell’Utopia.

Another take from this experience is that interviewing is a skill that requires adaptability, patience, and sensitivity to participants’ availability and comfort. I’ve realised the importance of balancing persistence in securing interviews with respect for participants’ time and boundaries. It has also expanded my understanding of interviews as interactive and evolving processes, in line with Holstein and Gubrium (1995).

In the context of Communication for Development (C4D), these skills are very important. Interviews are useful for understanding community narratives, and knowing how to engage participants actively is essential to any research process. On the other hand, last-minute changes or delays can create pressure. Therefore,  it is essential to plan ahead and build in extra time to accommodate any issues that may arise. This ensures that the quality of the research does not suffer due to time constraints.

 

References:

Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications.

Trier-Bieniek, A. (2012). ‘Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research: A methodological discussion.’ Qualitative Research, 12 (6), 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439005

Tried and Tested: The Active Interview Experience

  By ,

The study of Communication for Development (C4D) has certainly brought me out of the spectator seat and allowed me to see beyond the surface of social issues. I am particularly drawn to the exercise on interviewing techniques, where I could engage hands-on with the process. This post reflects on my experiences throughout the assignment. Additionally, coming from a journalism background and a lengthy career in marketing communications, I realise that interviews in both fields focus on informing targeted audiences or seeking insights for commercial purposes, whereas the objectives of academic research interviews are more varied and broader in scope.

Developing questions

After reviewing the recommended chapters from The Active Interview, I decided to shape the interview around Digital Artivism.  I have always been interested in how art and advocacy come together, so I created the following three open-ended questions:

  • What picture comes to mind when you think about art and activism? 
  • Is there any artwork or artist that pops up when you think of a strong and impactful visual for the social cause?
  • What would be your motivation to get involved in a movement – join a protest or campaign for something?

As suggested in the chapter “Rethinking Interview Procedures” (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 77), the questions serve as a guide that I would introduce only when the timing feels right. I also reviewed the key points from the handout “Strategies for Qualitative Interviews” and tested the questions with a few people in my close circle to ensure they were easy to understand. In marketing research, there’s a saying that if ‘grandma’ gets the idea, then we’re all set. This principle equally applies in an academic setting and is a key aspect of being “a successful interviewer”.

Furthermore, without mentioning digital as a medium, I left it open to see if my respondents would naturally connect to the subject and how the narratives may shift from there. I also wanted to discuss digital artivism, but I kept it as an improvisational element in the conversation.

The Search for the Random Interlocutors

“Active Interviewing capitalizes on the ways that respondents both develop and use horizons to establish and organise subjective meanings” (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 57). This led me to consider how cultural and linguistic backgrounds shaped individuals’ interpretations of Digital Artivism. I explored conducting the interviews in two different languages: one in English and the other in Mandarin, which is my mother tongue. I preferred to locate someone who uses English as a second language.

My first respondent was introduced to me by my daughter, who started a local youth initiative during her university years to create social activities and promote engagement for young people aged 16 to 29 in our city, which otherwise lacks relevant opportunities. My respondent is her co-partner and, as I understand, has always been interested in visual arts and speaks fluent English as a second language. We have met a few times before but I am mostly known as the mother of his friend. We agreed to interview in person.

For the second respondent, I created a “wanted” post in a private Facebook group with over 3,500 members, administered by a Taiwanese individual residing in Sweden. Within 24 hours, I received five applications. Without knowing any of the applicants, I selected one who offered to be interviewed through Zoom at the earliest opportunity.

Image of my “wanted” post:

It is translated to:

Hello everyone! I am currently studying for a master’s degree at Malmö University in Sweden. I need to complete an assignment. I need a volunteer to conduct a Zoom interview for about half an hour, and it will be conducted in Mandarin. Your personal information will never be published. Since family or friends are not allowed to participate, I’m hoping to find someone in this group who is willing to help! If you are interested, please send me a private message! Thank you🙏☺️

One of the commenters inquired about the topic, and after some consideration, I decided not to disclose any details about my interview questions. I wanted the interviews to remain fresh and unprepared for the interviewees. I responded by stating that I would write a report on my experience conducting the interviews using academic research methods. I am unsure whether my daughter provided the first respondent with more details about the interview, come to think of it.

Two Settings in Two Languages

 

In Person with AK

I met AK, my first respondent, at our local library while he took a break from a Halloween activity organised by the youth group at the same location.  I assured him that the interview would take no more than 30 minutes. I felt that having a clear timeline would help him feel less stressed and more relaxed, allowing him to focus on our session amid his duties at the event.

After a light-hearted conversation about the ongoing pumpkin carving at the Halloween activity, as well as AK’s current studies in media and his interest in visual arts, I sensed it was the right moment to begin the actual interview. I asked for permission to voice-record our session, and he gave me the green light.

The list of cons from the handout “Strategies for Qualitative Interviews,” states that recording and transcribing interviews can introduce a different dynamic into the social encounter (n.d.). This was true in my earlier experiences back a couple of decades ago when an actual recorder was present. However, I noticed that using a phone to record the interview made both the respondent and me forget about it after a while. Perhaps we had simply grown accustomed to seeing the phone lying on the table. It wasn’t until I was leaving that I realised the voice recording was still on.

In this interview, English was the operating language, and for both of us, it was a second language. I would describe the entire session felt casual. It was certainly a “give-and-take” around topics (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 76), and I found that the respondent felt comfortable and elaborated more during this interaction. The rapport was great and it could have easily gone over time. Being mindful of this, I made an effort to balance the conversation focused on my topic but also allowing flexibility to explore his narratives. Additionally, having paper and a pen was helpful, as visually oriented individuals often find it easier to express their ideas through drawing rather than finding the right words.

Zoom Call with AC

The Zoom call was scheduled for 10 PM. AC suggested this later evening session since she would be home by around 9 PM and was concerned about my assignment deadline. She was eager to help me complete it as soon as possible. I was impressed by her enthusiasm and didn’t want to dampen her passion. Although this is usually my wind-down hour, I confirmed the schedule. I also learned a valuable lesson from this experience, which I will note down later.

Our initial correspondence took place via Facebook Messenger. Once the time was confirmed, I shared a Zoom link. At the agreed time, we connected, but there was a slight disturbance in our connection that distracted us during our first contact. I felt awkward asking her to quiet down another person who was talking loudly in her space. I also made the incorrect assumption that her mother tongue was Mandarin. Although her Mandarin was quite proficient, she was not a native speaker, even though she highlighted her frequent engagements with Mandarin speakers from Taiwan.

Although I had prepared my questions in Mandarin, some of the phrases I used may not have reflected current common usage because I had been living abroad for several years. This led my respondent to seek further clarification and suggest terms that I realised were more suitable.  I also decided not to rely on English for support, even though we did use it very sparingly. 

Since much of the information required active interpretation, we both adopted a collaborative approach to constructing the interview. This is generally considered a big no-no in marketing research where it is crucial to communicate precisely to ensure that target audiences receive the right message and that there is no misalignment from a branding perspective. However, the collaborative approach fits well within the principles of active interviewing in a research context which focuses on mutual understanding and co-construction of meaning(Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 57).  Moreover, it is not just about giving the right message but about getting the message right. 

AC was a gracious and patient respondent, and recording the meeting was not an issue. We developed a fascinating conversation, particularly since she is a master’s student deeply concerned with issues of injustice and de-colonialism. I realised there were additional narratives I could have explored if it had not been past my bedtime and my fatigue had not been so apparent. “You look tired,” AC pointed out, It brought me some embarrassment, especially since I was the one requesting her assistance for this assignment. This certainly highlighted the importance of scheduling interviews at an appropriate time – a valuable lesson I have learned.

“Schedule needs sufficient flexibility to be substantively built up and altered the course of the interview.”  (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, pp. 54-55)

Conclusion 

Perhaps it’s a sign of the times: Zoom meetings seem to be much more convenient than in-person meetings. They are also easier to set up. Within 48 hours of my initial Facebook post, the second interview was completed, which was more efficient than I had expected. It was not challenging to build rapport in either setting. Regarding the languages used in the interviews, speaking Mandarin facilitated a deeper connection to the conversation than English.

Additionally, the Mandarin language reflects various contexts in art and activism, prompting different emotional responses. The process of coding and conveying these ideas in both Mandarin and English is an engaging challenge but not an obstacle. Moreover, the interaction allows both respondents to reveal their unique insights and interpretations (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 58).

The lecture and text on interview techniques offered me new perspectives I had not previously considered, and this exercise has deepened my understanding of the dynamics and meanings involved in research-based interviews, which I find truly empowering. While writing the reflection on my experiences and learning with this post, I plan to adopt a habit of reflective practice in my future work. I see the benefit of approaching my interviews as being an ‘ethnographer of the interview,’ and paying close attention to the interactions during the conversations, as well as the dialogues as was discussed in The Active Interview (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995, p. 74).

Additionally, I have gained insights from the interviews on digital artivism that I will apply to my next blog post assignment. So stay tuned!

 

References:
  • Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231640
  • Strategies for Qualitative Interviews(n.d.). Interview_strategies.pdf

Insights from Two Interviews – Job Transitioning Corporate vs NGO

  By ,

This time the blog is all about interviews! A very important skill to have and an easy way to understand and be inspired by others. Due to my personal interest and current life-career questions, I wanted to focus on the experience of moving from the corporate world to an NGO and vice versa. For this, I chose two people who had the opportunity to do this and who could share their experiences of transition with me.

During the interviews, I found it fascinating how a change can bring so many benefits, as skills can be transferred and used in areas that sometimes seem so contradictory.

So, how did the interviews happen? I choose two people that went through a transition in the past years and made sure I reached out with enough time and making sure I clearly stated the purpose of my request. Once both accepted, it was time to set up all the details.

The first interview would be conducted over Zoom and the second in person over coffee. One of the people I interviewed, had left the corporate sector to bring her skills to an NGO, the other had done the exact opposite. Both had to adapt their expertise in storytelling and strategic messaging to their organizations. But I will go now into more details about the set up and content of the interviews. 

 

The Interview Questions 

I asked each interviewee the same three open-ended questions to guide our discussion:

1. What motivated you to leave corporate work for an NGO role (or the opposite)?
2. How do you use your communication skills in your current role?
3. What challenges have you faced in adjusting to an NGO/corporate environment?

These questions led to interesting insights, some of which were very similar but viewed from two different angles, which enriched my learning. The physical and virtual aspects of the conversation also had a lot to do with the experience, but they did not stop me from getting information that was worth listening to.

Interview 1 – A virtual experience

We got started right away with an opening introduction from both sides and some small talk to make sure we both felt comfortable. Once the ice had broken, I started with the topic questions – at this point quick check-ins, a few head nods and lots of “aha’s” and “I get it” were necessary to show engagement in the conversation. While remote interviews are convenient, non-verbal cues such as eye contact and subtle gestures are limited and this made verbal communication more important than ever. However, Trier-Bieniek (2012), notes that virtual interviews sometimes encourage more honesty as participants can speak from the comfort of their chosen space and this was something very noticeable in my experience. The “safe distance” of the virtual environment, did help both of us to open up about sensitive topics and almost created a nice connection and desire to keep the conversation rolling after the planned time was over.

The conversation was focused and productive, but I had to work harder to keep the interviewer on task by actively nodding and verbally responding to show that I was present. Due to the virtual barrier, it was important to ask clear, specific follow-up questions and give regular verbal acknowledgements to keep the dialog going. Research by Irvine (2012) shows that virtual interviews require more verbal acknowledgements to convey attention as non-verbal cues are limited in this environment. Still, the screen provided a buffer that could help us feel less vulnerable, and my interviewee was willing to share insights about the shift from corporate to non-governmental organizations without hesitation.

Interview 2 – A coffee break in the office

For the second interview, I choose a colleague who I had seen a few times before, but with whom I had not yet built up a relationship. When I emailed her to ask if she would agree to an interview, she seemed pleasantly surprised, which made me feel like we were on the right track. At the arranged appointment, we had a coffee together and chatted.

As Holstein and Gubrium (1995) argue, face-to-face conversations benefit from this “interactive richness” that makes it easier to build a genuine relationship through shared context. And so it was. There was something about the familiar activity of drinking coffee that put us at ease, and this setting encouraged a relaxed, open conversation right from the start. The physical aspect allowed for more spontaneity as each of us paid attention to small non-verbal cues such as a slight tilt or raised eyebrow.

Since we were in the same room during the face-to-face conversation, we were able to respond naturally to each other’s body language, which made clarification easier and faster. For example, if my colleague seemed unsure about a question, I could simply rephrase or adjust my approach based on her expression or posture. This echoes the findings of Trier-Bieniek (2012), who notes that collaborative activities (such as coffee breaks) can create a supportive environment for sharing more detailed, nuanced insights.

I also found it fascinating how important eye contact is and how, even if I would break eye contact for a few seconds, I can feel the conversation slowing down because I might be signaling distraction or lack of interest.

Key Insights from Each Interview Mode

Building Empathy and Comfort: The coffee chat in person created an easy-going atmosphere that helped establish a strong connection early on. In contrast, the Zoom interview required more verbal encouragement and attention to active listening cues to build that same level of rapport. Each setting demanded different tactics to make the interviewee feel comfortable sharing their story. Trier-Bieniek (2012) notes that virtual interviews are increasingly familiar to most people, making them a valuable tool, especially when in-person meetings are not feasible.’

Clarifying and Responding in Real-Time: The in-person setting naturally supported clarity and understanding since non-verbal cues could be picked up instantly. This allowed for a smoother, more unfiltered exchange. In virtual settings, however, questions need to be structured thoughtfully to compensate for limited non-verbal communication (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011).

Talking to both participants highlighted just how different these two interview modes can feel. In-person interviews have an undeniable advantage in fostering natural conversation, while Zoom offers practicality and can sometimes make people feel more at ease discussing personal topics. Adjusting to each mode’s strengths—using verbal affirmations and specific follow-up questions on Zoom, for example—helped keep both conversations flowing.

Understanding the interplay between interview mode and rapport-building strategies is key in communication research. Ultimately, this experience highlighted the importance of flexibility in interviewing, helping me refine techniques that keep the conversation meaningful and insightful, regardless of the setting.

 

References
  • Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications.
  • Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086
  • Trier-Bieniek, A. (2012). Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research: A methodological discussion. Qualitative Research, 12 (6), 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439005