By: Catrine
This blog post deviates from my usual style to provide a personal reflection on conducting interviews using different methodologies. Tasked with interviewing two individuals, one online and one face-to-face, I encountered an initial challenge. Residing in a small town with limited access to professionals in the field of ComDev, I had to devise a strategy to identify suitable interviewees within this domain while also considering logistical constraints.
To address this, I chose to focus on the intersection of my passion for sports and youth work with the integration of young people from conflict affected areas into society. A cause I actively try to contribute to in my community. Leveraging my existing network, I identified two individuals working with similar objectives in different sporting clubs.
The first interview was conducted online via Zoom with an individual involved in facilitating collaboration between elite sports clubs and local community organizations to engage young people. This virtual approach allowed me to connect with someone outside my immediate geographical area, expanding the scope of my research.
The second interview was conducted face-to-face with a representative from a neighboring town participating in the collaborative network by an elite club. This face-to-face interview provided valuable insights into their strategies for establishing contact with children, youth, and their parents, further enriching my understanding of community engagement through sports.
First Contact and Building Rapport
Initial contact with potential interviewees was established through email. In these emails, I outlined the nature of my studies, the objectives of the assigned interviews, and my request to pose questions related to their expertise. To further establish common ground and build rapport, I also briefly described my own volunteer work within the field of soccer. This approach elicited positive responses, and subsequent scheduling of interviews was conducted collaboratively to ensure mutual convenience.
During the interview I tried to establishing rapport to be as successful as possible during my interviews, both online and face-to-face. It creates a comfortable atmosphere, fosters open communication, and allows for a more genuine exchange of information. While interviews online offer convenience, building rapport can be challenging due to the lack of face-to-face interaction. This absence of visual cues can hinder the “natural” flow of conversation and limit the development of trust and empathy, crucial for generating rich qualitative data. Researchers must rely on strong communication skills to compensate for this, keeping interviewees engaged while ensuring the conversation remains focused (Irvine et al., 2012).
There are a few things I decided to do before the interviews to make sure everything would flow. Since building rapport is essential for successful interviews, whether online or face-to-face the flow is important. During the online interview I started by ensuring that the technology would work flawlessly, and I chose a professional background to make it easier on the eyes for the interviewee. During the conversation, I tried to maintain “eye contact” by looking at the camera and to be mindful of my body language.
For the face-to-face interview, I made sure I would arrive on time and dress professionally according to the subject. I offered a firm handshake, made eye contact, and tried to use active listening cues. In both settings, its important to be authentic, enthusiastic, and find common ground which is easy when you are interviewing someone about your own passion and interests. Active participation by the interviewer, such as engaging in conversations on shared topics and drawing on common experiences, fosters rapport and encourages more detailed responses from the interviewee. This creates a comfortable environment where the interviewee feels understood and is more likely to elaborate and provide richer qualitative data (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995). It also helped me that I had a good knowledge about the subject since background knowledge of circumstances relevant to the research topic and/or the respondent’s experience can be an invaluable resource for the interviewer (Holstein & Gubrium, 1995).
Zoom vs Face to Face Interviews
Both Zoom and face-to-face interviews offer unique advantages and disadvantages. Zoom interviews provide unparalleled convenience. Participants can join from anywhere with an internet connection, saving time and travel costs. However, finding a quiet, distraction-free environment can be challenging, and technical difficulties may disrupt the flow. While screen sharing allows for effective presentation of visual aids, the lack of physical presence can hinder the interpretation of non-verbal cues and the development of rapport. Although Zoom interviews allow for more relaxed attire, it’s important to maintain a professional appearance. Prior preparation is crucial, including testing technology and ensuring a professional background.
In contrast, face-to-face interviews offer a more personal and authentic experience. Meeting at the interviewee provides valuable insight into the persons environment but requires time for travel and may incur expenses. Direct interaction and eye contact facilitate a stronger connection.
Ultimately, the choice between Zoom and face-to-face interviews depends on various factors. Each format offers distinct benefits and drawbacks, and careful consideration of these factors will ensure a successful interview experience.
Interviews are a valuable tool for academic writing, offering rich qualitative data that can strengthen arguments and generate new ideas. They provide firsthand insights, diverse perspectives, and personal narratives, adding depth and complexity to the work.
Using quotes and anecdotes from interviews can support claims, illustrate concepts, and challenge existing perspectives, making my writing more engaging and credible. The dynamic nature of interviews can also uncover unexpected insights and stimulate critical thinking, leading to more nuanced analysis and original research. Ultimately, interviews bridge the gap between theory and real-world experiences, enriching the research and writing with diverse voices and perspectives.
Conclusion
Both interviews proved to be insightful and inspiring, equipping me with new tools to enhance my work with young people. The contrasting modalities, however, offered unique advantages and limitations. The Zoom interview provided flexibility and access to a wider pool of interviewees, while the face-to-face interaction fostered a deeper connection and facilitated a richer exchange of non-verbal cues.
This experience has sparked a deeper interest in the topic of integration through sport, and I intend to delve further into this area. My aim is to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on this subject by exploring the role of sports in fostering social inclusion and community development. Different interviewing techniques can significantly enhance my academic writing practices as well as my work in this area, by providing diverse perspectives, enriching my data, and strengthen my arguments.
Given that both my interviewees were in their 60s, I observed that the individual interviewed online held back when answering. Reflecting on this experience, if I were to conduct these interviews again, I would opt for face-to-face interactions for both. While online interviews offer convenience and accessibility, in this instance, the age and potentially limited familiarity with technology of the interviewees may have influenced their comfort levels.
This highlights the importance of tailoring the interview technique to the specific characteristics of the interviewee. Choosing the appropriate format can significantly impact the quality of the interaction and the richness of the data obtained.
If you want to read more
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications, Inc., https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986120
Irvine, A., Drew, P., & Sainsbury, R. (2013). ‘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
