Annie Irvine

‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ : Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews

This article considers spoken interaction in semi-structured qualitative research interviews, comparing those that are conducted by telephone or face-to-face. It draws upon recent empirical research that illuminated some of the differences that may be observed between these two interview modes. Methodological techniques drawn from Conversation Analysis were used to conduct a systematic and transparent comparison of the interview interactions, focusing on the spoken interactional devices that researcher and interviewee employ in order to pursue and maintain a collaborative and comprehensible dialogue. The article begins with an overview of previous discussion on the interactional effects of the telephone in qualitative interviews. Here, we find that while instructional texts have traditionally advised that the telephone mode is not well-suited to the task of qualitative interviewing – primarily because the lack of face-to-face contact is said to restrict the development of rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter – researchers giving personal accounts of conducting telephone interviews tend to offer more nuanced or critical reflections on the extent to which the lack of visual cues affects the interaction in practice. Empirical findings are then presented on: formulation and completion, clarification and comprehension, acknowledgement, interviewees’ checks on the ‘adequacy’ of their talk, and the duration of interviews. Key findings were that: completion or formulation of interviewee talk by the researcher was more common in face-to-face interviews; interviewee requests for clarification were slightly more common in telephone interviews; vocalized acknowledgements given by the researcher were less frequent in telephone interviews; interviewee checks on the adequacy of their responses were more common in telephone interviews; and telephone interviews tended to be shorter than those conducted face-to-face. The article discusses possible explanations for the findings that emerge alongside consideration of some potential implications.

Duration, Dominance and Depth in Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews: A Comparative Exploration:

Traditionally, methodological textbooks have advised that the telephone mode is not well suited to the task of qualitative interviewing. At the same time, there are well-rehearsed arguments as to why telephone interviews may be a useful option in some circumstances. Despite this debate, there remains very limited systematic empirical exploration of differences in the process and outcomes of qualitative telephone vs. face-to-face interviews. Based on a recent ‘mode comparison’ study that sought to contribute to this gap in methodological knowledge, analysis of the overall duration, dominance and depth of talk between researcher and participant in a small set of telephone and face-to-face interviews revealed the following findings. (i) Despite much variation in individual interview length, telephone interviews were typically, and on average, shorter than those conducted face-to-face. (ii) The shorter duration of telephone interviews was a result of the participant speaking for less time, rather than a proportional reduction in talk from both parties. Additionally, in telephone interviews, participants generally held the floor for shorter stretches at a time. (iii) The researcher did slightly more talking during telephone interviews than in face-to-face interactions. Combined with the reduced amount of participant talk, this meant that the researcher tended to hold the floor for a greater proportion of the time in telephone interviews. (iv) To a moderate degree, the shorter length of telephone interviews could be accounted for by a reduction in coverage of themes. However, the principal explanation appeared to lie in a tendency for telephone interview participants to provide relatively less detail or elaboration. In this article, we consider why these differences may occur, if and how they might matter to the research, and how we might wish to modify interview practices in response.

Personal Adviser Interviews With Benefits Claimants in UK Jobcentres

We report on a study commissioned by the UK government of the ways in which advisers conduct mandatory interviews with unemployment benefits claimants. Among other results, we identified practices in soliciting claimants’ job goals and job plans that were more, or less, effective in achieving desired outcomes during these interactions. Moreover, we found that making a calculation of how much better off a claimant would be by retaining some benefit and working part-time was ineffective. Our reports, recommendations, and presentation to officials of the Department of Work & Pensions were acknowledged to have influenced policy changes concerning Jobcentre service delivery. Data are in British English.

Something to declare? The disclosure of common mental health problems at work

This article presents research findings that suggest there is a further dimension to be added to existing understandings of workplace disclosure of common mental health problems. Experiences of participants in two recent studies on mental health and employment illustrated that, firstly, while people may talk to their employer about emotional distress in general terms, they do not necessarily discuss the effects on their mental health in medicalised language. Secondly, people may not mention anything at all because they do not perceive what they are experiencing as a ‘mental health’ issue that might warrant the involvement of their employer. These findings raise questions about conceptualisations of mental health. The article suggests that an enhanced focus in public and policy discourse on concepts of mental well‐being and positive mental health, as matters of universal relevance, may lead to earlier recognition of and better support for common mental health problems at work.

Putting Personalisation into Practice: Work-Focused Interviews in Jobcentre Plus

The principle of personalisation is widespread across the UKs public sector, but precisely what this means is unclear. A number of theoretical typologies have been proposed but there has been little empirical study of how personalisation is translated into practice on the frontline. We address this gap through analysis of a unique dataset: over 200 audio and video recordings of work-focused interviews in Jobcentre Plus offices. Through detailed analysis of these recordings, we show that personalisation reflects two key dimensions: the substantive (what advisers do) and the procedural (how they do it). We illustrate these dimensions, showing how each represents a continuum, and propose a typology of personalisation in practice, reflecting how the dimensions interact. We conclude with some thoughts on the relevance of our findings for advisory practice in the future under the Coalition governments new Work Programme.

Should Mandatory Jobseeker Interviews be Personalised? The Politics of Using Conversation Analysis to Make Effective Practice Recommendations

With the economic downturn of 2009, Jobcentre Plus, the UK service that gives employment advice and administers unemployment benefits, has come under increased media scrutiny. Can it deliver the personalised service it purports to offer, given the 90 per cent increase in number of claimants arriving at its doors? The media have been sceptical, even hostile. It is not uncommon to see stories of claimants feeling ‘processed’ through an impersonal and callous system, as in this horror story in The Times: A friend of mine — let’s call her Gill — was one of six directors recently made redundant by a well-known UK consortium… So, like you, me or any raw school-leaver, she Googled ‘job centre’ and phoned the number on the website. There follows a tale of such humiliation, misunderstanding and Stalinist bureaucracy that, on reading it, the shivers will run up the spine of every white-collar worker in the land. (Reid, 2008, p. 20)

Choosing health: qualitative evidence from the experiences of personal health budget holders

Objectives Personal health budgets were piloted in the English National Health Service between 2009 and 2012. Semi-structured interviews with a sub-sample of early budget holders aimed to explore their experiences of receiving and using a budget. Method Over 2000 people from 20 pilot sites were recruited to a multi-method evaluation of the personal health budget pilots. A sub-sample of 58 people was selected for qualitative interviews three months after the offer of a budget; 52 were re-interviewed six months later. The purposively selected sample reflected a range of health conditions, locality, age and gender. Results Personal health budgets were reported to have positive impacts on health, health care and relatives/family. Benefits often extended beyond the condition for which the budget had been awarded. However, interviewees rarely knew the level of their budget; some reported difficulty in agreeing acceptable uses for their budget; and delays could occur in procuring chosen services or equipment. Conclusion Patients’ experiences offer valuable insights for the roll-out of personal health budgets beyond the pilot phase. Flexibility in how budgets are used may allow maximum benefits to be derived. Clear information about what budgets can and cannot be used for, with suggestions offered, will be useful. People with newly diagnosed or recent sudden onset conditions may need more help to plan their support, but all budget holders are likely to benefit from regular contact with staff for reassurance and continued motivation.

Reflection/Commentary on a Past Article: “Duration, Dominance, and Depth in Telephone and Face-to-Face Interviews: A Comparative Exploration”: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/160940691101000302

The methodological project from which the paper originated applied techniques of conversation analysis to the exploratory comparison of face-to-face and telephone interviews in qualitative social research. This was quite groundbreaking at the time and provided me with exciting opportunities to present at national and international conferences, to give seminars, and to write chapters and guides for students and applied social researchers, as well as the study’s more academic outputs.