Walden University Recruiting for the Interview Journal For this week’s Journal entry, respond to the following two prompts: Regarding the research plan, a

Walden University Recruiting for the Interview Journal For this week’s Journal entry, respond to the following two prompts:

Regarding the research plan, address the following:
What are the best sources for finding participants who fit your criteria for inclusion in the sample?
Who do you need to contact to get permission to distribute your announcement?
How do you choose information-rich cases?
Regarding your practice interviews for the course, address the following:
Brainstorm ideas for asking friends and/or family who could role-play the task of the interviewee sufficiently to provide a rich, detailed interview.
BY DAY 3

Complete your Journal entry for submission to your Instructor. E-Mail Interviewing in Qualitative Research:
A Methodological Discussion
Lokman I. Meho
School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University, 1320 E. 10th Street,
LI 011, Bloomington, IN 47405. E-mail: meho@indiana.edu
This article summarizes findings from studies that
employed electronic mail (e-mail) for conducting indepth interviewing. It discusses the benefits of, and the
challenges associated with, using e-mail interviewing in
qualitative research. The article concludes that while a
mixed mode interviewing strategy should be considered
when possible, e-mail interviewing can be in many cases
a viable alternative to face-to-face and telephone interviewing. A list of recommendations for carrying out
effective e-mail interviews is presented.
Introduction
The past two decades have seen a considerable increase in
the number of studies in library and information science (LIS)
that employ qualitative research methods. This increase has,
in turn, resulted in a noticeable shift towards studies that rely
on observation and in-depth (or less-structured) interviewing, as opposed to questionnaires or structured interviewing.
The goal of both observation and in-depth interview methods
is to improve understanding of social and cultural phenomena
and processes rather than to produce objective facts about
reality and make generalizations to given populations (Fidel,
1993; Pettigrew, Fidel, & Bruce, 2001; Wang, 1999). Over
the years, however, researchers have identified challenges
associated with the observation and in-depth interview methods, including cost, time, and limited access to research participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Gubrium & Holstein,
2002; Kvale, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002;
Strauss & Corbin, 1998; Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). Challenged with the task of identifying new methods or tools for
conducting more effective research while retaining or improving quality, researchers started to explore using the
Internet for carrying out qualitative research.
These researchers began to use (and still do) three main
types of Internet-based qualitative research methods: online
synchronous interviews, online asynchronous interviews,
Received May 25, 2005; revised June 23, 2005; accepted August 3, 2005
•
© 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online 25 May 2006 in Wiley
InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.20416
and virtual focus groups.1 In contrast to studies that used online synchronous interviews (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004;
Madge & O’Connor, 2002; Mann & Stewart, 2000) and
those that used virtual focus groups (Burton & Bruening,
2003; Chase & Alvarez, 2000; Gaiser, 1997; Mann & Stewart, 2000; Schneider, Kerwin, Frechtling, & Vivari, 2002;
Underhill & Olmsted, 2003), studies that used online
asynchronous interviewing have never been reviewed as a
separate body of literature and their specific characteristics
have nearly always been subsumed under the broader category of online research methods (e.g., Kraut et al., 2004;
Madge & O’Connor, 2004). To fill this gap, the current paper
reviews studies that used online, asynchronous, in-depth
interviewing within the context of qualitative research. In
doing so, the article addresses two questions:
What opportunities, constraints, and challenges does online,
asynchronous, in-depth interviewing present for collecting
qualitative data?
How can in-depth e-mail interviews be conducted effectively?
Before discussing these questions, it is important to note
that online, asynchronous, in-depth interviewing, which is
usually conducted via e-mail, is, unlike e-mail surveys,
semistructured in nature and involves multiple e-mail exchanges between the interviewer and interviewee over an
extended period of time. Online, asynchronous, in-depth interviewing is also different from virtual focus groups in that
the information volunteered by individual participants is not
shared with, viewed, or influenced by other participants
(Schneider et al., 2002). With the exception of Meho and
Tibbo (2003), LIS researchers have yet to adopt this method
of interviewing in their qualitative research. Exploring the
value of e-mail interviewing in qualitative research and
1
Electronic questionnaires (via Web page delivery or electronic mail)
are among the earliest and most popular online methods used by
researchers. These, however, are considered quantitative in nature and the
studies based on them are not reviewed here. For excellent reviews of
online surveys or questionnaires, see Birnbaum (2004), Couper (2000),
Dillman (2000), and Tourangeau (2004).
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 57(10):1284–1295, 2006
knowing under what conditions it can be most effective and
how to implement it, should be useful to LIS researchers.
This knowledge could be particularly useful to those who
study people who prefer to be interviewed online rather than
face-to-face, as well as people who are not easily accessible
or are geographically far apart.
What follows is a review of studies that employed
qualitative e-mail interviewing, a summary of their major
findings, and a list of recommendations for carrying out
effective e-mail interviews.2
Review of the Literature
Citation and bibliographic searches using multiple types
of sources and strategies indicate that the use of in-depth,
e-mail interviewing is rapidly increasing. In 2003 and 2004
alone, for example, there were as many qualitative studies
using this data collection method as in all previous years (see
below). Moreover, nearly all of the studies conducted before
2003 were methodological in nature, aiming simply to test
the suitability of e-mail for qualitative interviewing. In
contrast, most of the studies conducted since 2003 have not
addressed methodological issues; this suggests that e-mail interviewing has become a viable tool for qualitative research.
Methodological Studies
In the earliest study Foster (1994) used e-mail for conducting qualitative interviews with subscribers to a listserv.
His intentions were both to study the ways in which university instructors conducted curriculum planning and to explore the advantages of e-mail interviewing, along with the
challenges that could arise were the method not employed
carefully. Murray (1995, 1996) interviewed five nurses to
study why and how they used computer-mediated communication and to examine the potentials of e-mail for interviewing research participants. Persichitte, Young, and Tharp
(1997) interviewed six education professionals by e-mail to
examine how they used technology at work and to develop
guidelines for conducting e-mail interviews (see also Young,
Persichitte, & Tharp, 1998). Murray and Sixsmith (1998)
conducted electronic interviews with 21 prosthesis users
located in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States in order to explore the viability of
e-mail as a qualitative research medium for in-depth interviewing. After educating her third- and fourth-year college
students about qualitative methods and in-depth interviewing, Curasi (2001) asked them to interview 48 consumers
by e-mail and face-to-face to examine how data from the
two types of interviews compare and how to increase the
effectiveness of the e-mail method.
2
The relevant literatures of discourse analysis, content analysis, and
computer-mediated communication (CMC) are not reviewed here. Discourse analysis is described in detail in Dijk (1997) and Schiffrin, Tannen,
and Hamilton (2001); content analysis in Krippindorff (2004), Patton
(2002), and Weber (1990); and CMC in Herring (2002), Knapp and Daly
(2002), and Thurlow, Tomic, and Lengel (2004).
Non-Methodological Studies
Kennedy (2000) conducted in-depth, e-mail interviews
with 17 women who are designers to determine the kinds of
experiences they have on the Internet and the impact these
experiences have on their Internet Web site activities, Internet personal activities, and non-Internet personal and/or
social activities. Karchmer (2001) used e-mail interviewing
to explore 13 K–12 teachers’ reports about how the Internet
influenced literacy and literacy instruction in their classrooms. Meho and Tibbo (2003) used e-mail interviewing to
explore and model the information-seeking behavior of
social science faculty; they interviewed 60 scholars from
14 different countries (see also Meho, 2001). Kim, Brenner,
Liang, and Asay (2003) used e-mail to interview ten 1.5Generation Asian American college students to study their
adaptation experiences as immigrants and their current
experiences as young adults. Hodgson (2004) used e-mail to
interview 22 self-reported self-injurers to learn about their
stigma management techniques and their motives for selfinjury. Lehu (2004) conducted in-depth interviews with
53 top-level managers and advertising executives to investigate why brands age and what managers subsequently do to
rejuvenate them. Murray (2004) interviewed 35 prosthesis
users by e-mail and face-to-face to understand the embodied
perceptual experience of successful prosthesis. Murray and
Harrison (2004) conducted e-mail and face-to-face interviews with 10 stroke survivors to investigate the meaning
and experience of being a survivor. Olivero and Lunt (2004)
conducted semistructured long e-mail and face-to-face interviews with 28 adult Internet users to explore their views on
privacy. More details about the above mentioned 14 studies
are provided in Table 1.
Although only Curasi (2001), Meho and Tibbo (2003),
Murray (2004), Murray and Harrison (2004), and Olivero
and Lunt (2004) collected both e-mail and face-to-face interview data, the majority of the 14 studies summarized above
discussed the benefits and challenges of e-mail interviewing
in qualitative research and how to alleviate or eliminate
some of those problems, or how to conduct more efficient
and effective e-mail interviews. The following is a summary
of their findings.
Benefits and Challenges Associated With the Use
of E-Mail Interviewing in Qualitative Research
Cost and Efficiency
E-mail interviews cost considerably less to administer
than telephone or face-to-face interviews. Researchers can
invite participation of large or geographically dispersed
samples of people by sending them e-mail messages individually or through listservs, message boards, or discussion
groups, rather than making long-distance telephone calls,
using regular mail, or traveling to the location of participants. The use of e-mail in research also decreases the cost
of transcribing. Data from e-mail interviews are generated in
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/asi
1285
1286
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/asi
Nurses
Education
professionals
Prosthesis users
Female Web
designers
Consumers
K–12 teachers
None
None
None
None
24
None
5
6
21
17
(all women)
24
13
(10 women
and 3 men)
Murray (1995,
1996)
Persichitte et al.
(1997); and
Youngetal.(1998)
Murray &
Sixsmith (1998)
Kennedy (2000)
Curasi (2001)
Karchmer (2001)
University
instructors
None
NR
Foster (1994)
Participants
No. of FTF
participants
Details of e-mail interview studies.
No. of e-mail
participants
TABLE 1.
11 different states
in the United
States
NR
NR
Australia, Canada,
the Netherlands,
United Kingdom,
United States
NR
NR
Australia, New
Zealand, Canada,
United States,
Europe
Geographical
distribution of
participants
Announcements
on electronic
mailing lists
(n=8), direct email solicitations
to specific
teachers (n=10),
and snowballing
(n=13)
NR
Invitations posted
on listservs,
message boards,
and personal
research Web site,
as well as
e-mail messages
to individual Web
sites
Invitation posted
on a listserv
Individual e-mail
solicitations to
colleagues
Invitation posted
on a listserv
Invitation posted
on a listserv
Recruitment
tool/method
Building rapport
first, then emailing a few
questions at a
time
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
NR
NR
NR
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
Interview
questions
3 months
1 semester
(interviewers
were psychology
senior students)
NR
Over 4
months
Most interviews
were completed
within 2 weeks
NR
Length of
e-mail data
collection period
Between 25 and
30 times with
each participant
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
No. of e-mail
or follow-up
exchanges
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Incentives
(continued)
31 were invited; 16
initially agreed to
participate, 3 of
whom discontinued correspondence within the
first week of data
collection
NR
23 were initially
involved; 3
stopped
communicating
and 3 did not
supply enough
information for
analysis
NR
5 out of 9
indicated they
were willing to
participate in
additional
discussion
NR
Participation/
dropout rates
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/asi
1287
FTF face-to-face; NR not reported.
Web and e-mail
users
5
23
(12 women and 11
men)
Olivero & Lunt
(2004)
Note.
Stroke survivors
5
(2 women and
3 men)
5
(4 women and
1 men)
Murray &
Harrison (2004)
Murray (2004)
Successful
prosthesis users
Executives
None
53
14
21
19 women and 16 19 women and 16
men
men
Self-reported selfinjurers
None
22
(18 women and
4 men)
Hodgson (2004)
Lehu (2004)
Faculty
5
(all men)
60
(19 women and
41 men)
College students
None
Meho & Tibbo
(2003)
Participants
No. of FTF
participants
10
(3 women and
7 men)
No. of e-mail
participants
(continued)
Kim et al. (2003)
TABLE 1.
Different regions
in the United
Kingdom
United Kingdom
[and possibly
other countries]
United Kingdom
[and possibly
other countries]
France
Different states in
the United States
14 different
countries
Mid-Atlantic states
Geographical
distribution of
participants
Snowballing
among
experienced
Internet and email users
E-mail discussion
group for stroke
survivors
Advertisement on
an e-mail discussion group (with
approximately 200
members) via the
moderator of the
list
Telephone and
e-mail
Message boards
Database
searching to
identify e-mail
addresses and
then individual
invitations
Psychology
course
Recruitment
tool/method
Building rapport
and providing a
provisional structure to the interview first, then a
few questions at
a time
Building rapport
and providing a
provisional
structure to the interview first, then a
few questions at a
time
Building rapport
and providing a
provisional
structure to the
interview first,
then a few questions at a time
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
Interview Guide
in a single e-mail
and follow-up
Interview
questions
Over 6 weeks
An average of 6
weeks (range 2–8
weeks)
2–6 months
2–5 weeks
Over a month
5 months
10 weeks
Length of
e-mail data
collection period
Ranged from
17–24 messages
per participant
On average, 8.4
contacts were
made per person
(range: 8–10)
On average, 15
contacts were
made per person
(range: 5–60
contacts)
A maximum of 2
follow-up
exchanges with
most participants;
only 7 had more
exchanges
2–9 follow-up
e-mails per
participant
75.0% of study
participants
replied to 1–3
follow-up e-mails
Several
No. of e-mail
or follow-up
exchanges
NR
NR
20 pounds, 10
pounds if e-mails
were answered
within 24 hours
NR
Executives at 92
firms were contacted. 56 agreed
to participate. 53
were accepted
Of 106 potential
participants, 16
declined for lack
of time and 30 did
not respond to the
invitations
2 students dropped
out during data
collection and data
from 5 students
were not used, to
increase the
homogeneity of
the sample
Participation/
dropout rates
NR
NR
NR
NR
Bibliograph.&
citation searches,
and copies of
articles
Course credit
Incentives
electronic format and require little editing or formatting
before they are processed for analysis.
E-mail also eliminates the need for synchronous interview times and allows researchers to interview more than
1 participant at a time, because a standard interview schedule
or list of questions can be sent individually to several participants at once, irrespective of their geographical location
or time zone. However, the time period required to collect
e-mail interview data varies from one study to another. Some
researchers report a delay of several months before data
collection is complete, while others wait only a week. This
variation occurs because it may take days or even weeks
before a respondent replies to an e-mail message. The number of follow-up exchanges between the researcher and
participants may also fluctuate greatly; some interviewers
complete data collection after only one follow-up exchange,
whereas others may require more than 30 exchanges
(see Table 1).
Overall, the length of the data collection period depends
on several factors, including but not limited to: the number
of participants in each study, the number of questions asked,
the degree of commitment or motivation of the participants,
the quantity and quality of data gathered, the time both the
participants and the interviewers can afford to spend on
these interviews, and access to the Internet at the time
questions were e-mailed. Some studies showed that when online communication was stretched over a long period of time,
participants experienced a degree of affirmation for their participation (Bowker & Tuffin, 2004; Walther, 1996). As discussed further below, however, other studies show that the
longer it takes to complete an interview with a participant,
the higher the possibility of dropouts or frustration to both
the researcher and the interviewees (Hodgson, 2004). Methods or procedures that a researcher could employ to reduce
the possibilities of dropouts or frustration caused by length
or number of interviews are discussed below.
Democratization and Internationalization of Research
Although e-mail interviewing limits the research to those
people with access to the Internet, the method, on the other
hand, democratizes and internationalizes research. In contrast to face-to-face and telephone interviewing, e-mail interviewing enables researchers to study individuals or
groups with special characteristics or those often difficult or
impossible to reach or interview face-to-face or via telephone, such as executives (Lehu, 2004), prosthesis users
(Murray, 2004; Murray & Sixsmith, 1998), self-reported
self-injurers (Hodgson, 2004), stroke survivors (Murray &
Harrison, 2004), and people with disabilities (Bowker &
Tuffin, 2004), or those who are geographically dispersed
(Foster, 1994; Hodgson, 2004; Karchmer, 2001; Meho &
Tibbo, 2003; Murray, 2004; Murray & Harrison, 2004;
Murray & Sixsmith, 1998; Olivero & Lunt, 2004) or located
in dangerous or politically sensitive sites (Meho & Tibbo,
2003). Moreover, e-mail enables the interviewing of shy
people or people who do not or cannot express themselves as
1288
well in talking as they do in writing, especially when the language used in communicating with participants is their second one (Karchmer, 2001; Kim et al., 2003). In short, e-mail
allows the researcher to interview groups or communities
that would not and could not have been studied otherwise.
Sample Recruitment
Recruiting in e-mail interviewing studies is done in multiple ways, including individual solicitations, snowballing,
or invitations through listservs, message boards, discussion
groups, or personal research Web sites. Because these are the
same methods employed by online survey researchers, it
was not surprising that e-mail interviewing researchers face
similar problems in recruiting participants. For example,
although recruiting is easy in some cases, in others it can be
daunting because even when e-mail addresses are found or
invitations are sent to listservs and message boards, not all
potential participants re…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment