By: FI
Introduction
As part of exploring the allocation of development aid, I conducted two interviews with a Head of Department from a donor organization and the Director of a local partner organization. The Head of Department interview was held over Zoom in English, our mutual second language, while the Director’s interview was conducted face-to-face in Arabic, which is our native language. Both interviews, formal yet conversational, aimed to capture different perspectives on the current allocation of development assistance, and their impact on the overall effectiveness of aid in reaching target communities.
This exercise provided insights into the dynamics of face-to-face versus virtual interviews, rapport-building techniques, and the impact of language on communication.
Interview Process and Rapport-Building
Prior to both interviews, I established initial contact by emailing a brief self-introduction and purpose statement to each interviewee, emphasizing that the interviews would serve an academic purpose and would respect confidentiality. My background as an evaluator in media programs had led me to these individuals through mutual contacts, which likely eased any reservations and encouraged openness.
Building rapport was essential, and I approached each interview as a “host,” creating a comfortable environment and setting clear expectations. According to Knight’s (2009) view, rapport is crucial to foster trust and understanding, enabling interviewees to openly share their insights. From my introduction to closing, I focused on listening actively, using both verbal and non-verbal cues, and aligning myself with the interviewees’ pace and style. This approach facilitated smooth, insightful conversations and helped mitigate potential communication barriers, especially in the online setting.
In both the face-to-face and virtual interviews, I utilized a semi-structured interview approach, which combines prepared questions with the flexibility to pursue emerging topics based on the interviewees’ responses. To guide the conversation, I prepared three main open-ended questions, which provided the foundation for the interviews and ensured alignment with the interview objectives. This format offered a structured framework while allowing me to adapt naturally to each participant’s unique insights and perspectives. By maintaining these core questions, I was able to keep the discussion on track while also remaining open to spontaneous remarks that allowed for deeper understanding and richer data. Semi-structured interviews are particularly effective in development assistance research, where complex, context-specific answers benefit from the freedom to explore themes in depth. This approach allowed me to capture nuanced views on aid allocation, while respecting each interviewee’s conversational flow and comfort level.
Techniques for Establishing Rapport
Throughout both interviews, I aimed to be mindful of my body language, the tone of my responses, and the ability to follow up without imposing my perspective. Active listening and verbal affirmations, like nodding and smiling in the face-to-face interview, helped establish a stronger connection, especially since the interviewee could fully observe my expressions. For the virtual interview, where physical cues were limited, I relied on vocal tone and expressions that could translate well over video.
Introducing myself and the study gave a professional and transparent start to each conversation, fostering a comfortable atmosphere where interviewees felt valued. Setting clear goals and outlining the discussion topics allowed them to know what to expect, aligning both their and my expectations. Towards the end, I ensured each interviewee had time to ask questions or share feedback, enhancing reciprocity and respect, which are essential in such dialogues.
Differences Between Face-to-Face and Virtual Interviews
Experiences in both settings highlighted key contrasts in communication dynamics, levels of engagement, and overall quality of interaction.
Non-Verbal Communication
Face-to-Face Interview: Non-verbal cues like eye contact, body language, and gestures were easily noticeable, enhancing the communication flow and adding depth to the Director’s responses. Speaking in Arabic allowed for smooth interaction, helping me interpret the Director’s sentiments accurately.
Zoom Interview: The virtual interview with the Head of Department was less expressive due to minor video delays and lower quality, which impacted the reading of subtle cues. Communicating in English, a second language for both, sometimes required rephrasing, though summarizing points helped maintain engagement.
Level of Engagement and Personal Connection
Face-to-Face Interview: Physical presence strengthened the engagement, creating a focused and distraction-free environment. This setting lent a formal tone, allowing the Director’s responses to feel intentional and uninterrupted.
Zoom Interview: While convenient, the online format felt less intimate, occasionally disrupted by technical issues or surrounding distractions. However, we navigated these professionally, ensuring a productive conversation.
Technical Issues and Control Over the Environment
Face-to-Face Interview: The in-person interview avoided technical issues, giving complete control over environmental factors, thus minimizing distractions.
Zoom Interview: Minor audio and video delays created brief pauses, but a steady tone and allowances for delay helped maintain professionalism despite a slightly less formal setting.
Comfort Level and Perceived Professionalism
Face-to-Face Interview: The shared physical space fostered the Director’s comfort, enhancing openness and contributing to a serious tone that encouraged rich responses.
Zoom Interview: The Head of Department appeared comfortable in a familiar setting, though the virtual format’s casual feel occasionally impacted the formality of the interaction.
Reflecting on Personal Learning and Professional Practice
This exercise provided valuable insights into the practicalities and nuances of conducting interviews across different media. My observations underscored how non-verbal communication, personal connection, and technical reliability can distinctly influence the flow and depth of an interview. For professional or academic applications, understanding these dynamics enhances my ability to choose appropriate methods and prepare accordingly, whether interviewing in person or online.
Building rapport proved essential, as fostering a climate of trust is central to obtaining authentic insights. Active listening, an open stance, and non-verbal cues—such as eye contact and nodding—are all critical skills I’ll carry forward. Additionally, this experience highlighted the importance of adaptability; technical issues are often unavoidable, so remaining composed and focused is vital for maintaining professional standards.
Conclusion
The face-to-face and Zoom interviews illustrated both the unique benefits and limitations of each method. The in-person interview allowed for a richer, more engaging exchange due to the availability of non-verbal cues and an uninterrupted environment. However, the flexibility of the virtual interview enabled a timely, convenient meeting that respected the Head of Department’s busy schedule, albeit with some minor disruptions. Recognizing the unique characteristics and limitations of each format will better inform my approach in future interviews, aligning the method with the specific context and goals to yield the most effective outcomes. This experience has deepened my understanding of interview methodologies and their practical implications in cross-cultural, multilingual research settings.
