2015

The impact of interviewing techniques on

the responses generated in a qualitative
research, in an educational context

A comparison and contrast of face-to-face and telephone interviews

Mr. Dharmendra Patel

Lancaster University Management School
9/2/2015
Abstract
This research submits the outcomes of a comparison and contrast of face-to-face and
telephone interviewing techniques in terms of the impact they have on the responses of the
respondents. This research was conducted in an educational context and was qualitative in
nature. Two different sets of participants were identified and chosen for this research i.e.
interviewees and interviewers in order to get insights about the responses from the
perspectives. This research was predominantly driven by the personal experiences of the
participants whilst in both face-to-face and telephone interviews. The review of the literature
based on the similar research revealed that telephone interviews are a suitable replacement
for face-to-face interviews with the advancement in technology. However, most of these
studies were quantitative and were in different context that this research. Therefore, this
research which was qualitative and in educational context showed substantial variances
between the opinions and experiences about face-to-face and telephone interviews.
Therefore, with sizable evidence, it is concluded that face-to-face interviews have a much
higher constructive impact on the responses than telephone interviews.
Acknowledgement
First and foremost, I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank my supervisor Dr Yvonne
Latham for her constant support and guidance throughout the research. I was occupied with the
research internship at the beginning and was finding it difficult to cope up with that. Moreover, I
could not finalize my dissertation topic while other students had already started writing.
However, throughout all this my supervisor was not only very patient and helpful, but also
instilled positivity in me when I was struggling. This could be comprehended from the fact that
when I finally decided my dissertation topic, she seemed more excited about it than I was.

I would also like to thank Dr Martin Brigham for giving me an opportunity to be a part of this
course and for always motivating me through his e-mails. Moreover, he provided me an
opportunity to do a research internship dissertation, which was a lifetime experience for me.
Furthermore, the CEO of Upside Energy, Graham Oakes played a huge role in helping me
throughout the research internship. His flexibility and availability helped me give equal
importance to both the whitepaper and the dissertation when I was struggling to prioritize
between them.

Also, I would like to thank both the set of participants who were directly and indirectly a part of
this research, which include the people I interviewed, and the people who took my survey
interviewed.

I would also like to acknowledge the backing of my friends to help me through this research and
for being a family away from home. I would like to thank Akash Tilwani, Aneesha Kohli, Krati
Jain, Mrityunjaya Sharma and Suraj Jalumuri for being a constant support throughout.  

Last, but not the least, I would like to thank my family for always believing in me and my
abilities. 
Contents

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................................1
Acknowledgement.......................................................................................................................................2
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5
2. Literature Review................................................................................................................................8
2.1 Interviewing Techniques....................................................................................................................8
2.1.1 Face-to-face Interviews and Telephone Interviews vs Email Interviews.....................................9
2.1.2 Face-to-face Interviews and Telephone Interviews vs Skype Interviews..................................11
2.1.3 Face-to-face vs Telephone Interviews......................................................................................13
3. Methodology.....................................................................................................................................19
3.1 Methodological Choice....................................................................................................................19
3.2 Research Philosophy........................................................................................................................20
3.3 Participants......................................................................................................................................22
3.4 Sampling..........................................................................................................................................23
3.5 Data Collection Methods.................................................................................................................23
3.5.1 Semi-structured Interviews.......................................................................................................24
3.5.2 E-mail Interviews......................................................................................................................24
3.5.3 Online Surveys..........................................................................................................................25
3.6 Data Analysis Method......................................................................................................................25
3.6.1 Inductive Approach...................................................................................................................25
3.6.2 Thematic Analysis.....................................................................................................................26
3.7 Ethical Considerations.....................................................................................................................28
3.8 Empirical Journey.............................................................................................................................30
3.8.1 Early Days.................................................................................................................................30
3.8.2 Initial Approach.........................................................................................................................31
3.8.3 Dissertation Rationale...............................................................................................................32
4. Data Analysis.....................................................................................................................................34
4.1 First set of Participants i.e. Interviewees.........................................................................................34
4.1.1 Understanding..........................................................................................................................36
4.1.2 Engagement..............................................................................................................................37
4.1.3 Comfort.....................................................................................................................................38
4.2 Second set of Participants i.e. Interviewers.....................................................................................39
 4.2.1 Understanding...................................................................................................................43
4.2.2 Engagement.......................................................................................................................45
4.2.3 Comfort..............................................................................................................................46
4.2.4 Technology.........................................................................................................................47
4.3 Cumulative analysis of Interviewees and Interviewers....................................................................48
5. Limitations and Recommendations...................................................................................................50
6. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................51
7. Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................53

Tables

Table 1. Phases of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p87).........................................................28

Table 2. Coding of data from first set of participants................................................................................35
Table 3. Coding of data from second set of participants...........................................................................42

Figures

Figure 1. Pictorial representation of coding, and relating it to themes generated for first set of
participants................................................................................................................................................36
Figure 2. Pictorial representation of coding, and relating it to themes generated for the second set of
participants................................................................................................................................................43
1. Introduction
This research has been conducted as a part of a research internship. It was divided into two
phases i.e. the first phase concentrating on a completely different topic and subsequently
forming the basis of the second phase i.e. this particular research topic/dissertation. The
purpose of this study was to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of face-to-face and
telephone interviewing techniques by evaluating how these techniques affect the responses
generated in qualitative research, in the educational context. As a part of the first phase,
telephone and face-to-face interviews were conducted. It was during these interviews that
huge differences in the responses and their quality were noticed between one face-to-face
and one telephone interview. These differences prompted the concern regarding the role the
interviewing mediums play in terms of the data collected, and consequently led to this
research area for the second phase that this particular document is based on. Therefore, the
interest in this research area arises from a personal experience with the interviewing
techniques, encountered while working on the first phase of the research. It was for the first
phase that the semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain insights and knowledge,
which do not concern this dissertation. However they still form an integral part of this
research’s methodology. This is because for this research, the same set of participants on
whom semi-structured interviews were conducted (which form the first set of participants for
this research), were interviewed using emails regarding their experience about the semi-
structured interviews, and the data generated from these interviews is going to be analysed in
this research. Moreover, since the semi-structured interviews were used as a part of the first
phase of the research internship, they therefore provide both a medium and a reason to
compare and contrast them.

There are a lot of studies in this area that compare and contrast various interviewing
techniques, for instance, Deakin and Wakefield (2014) compare Skype and face-to-face
interviews, Irvine (2011) compares telephone and face-to-face interviews, and Meho (2006)
compares e-mail interviews to telephone and face-to-face interviews. Therefore, this research
would add to the already existing large pool of research conducted in the similar area,
consequently making the situating of this research in the existing literature quite
straightforward. However, most of the studies in this area are quantitative in nature, for
instance Aquilino (1992, 1994), Midanik et al. (1999) and Greenfield et al. (2000) investigate
the self-reports of alcohol and/or illegal usage of drugs Moreover, in terms of comparing
face-to-face and telephone interviews, other arenas like health and learning settings,
including home economists have also been researched by Harvey (1988), Tausig and
Freeman (1988) and Miller (1995). However, as states earlier these studies are quantitative in
nature. Furthermore, to add to the lack of similar studies in qualitative research, not many
studies have been conducted in the educational context either according to Sturges and
Hanrahan (2004), therefore making this particular research significant and making the exact
situating in the existing literature a little difficult. Consequently, this research aims to fill the
void left by lack of studies that emphasize on the evaluation of these techniques in qualitative
research and in educational context.

The practical significance of this research is that the techniques used in interviewing
participants can have a great impact on the data generated and the quality of the responses
received. There is a vast pool of literature available for the students and researchers who
wish to comprehend the ‘complex, interconnected family of terms, concepts, and
assumptions [that] surround the term qualitative research’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994, p1).
The literature on gathering data using interviewing techniques is quite vigorous too, however
not in the educational context as mentioned earlier. Therefore, in that context where most of
the students doing dissertations and thesis, at some point find the need to interview people,
this research will aid in understanding which the strengths and weakness of both the
interviewing techniques, subsequently helping them to decide which techniques to use for
particular interviews, with the help of the following research question:
‘How do the interviewing techniques i.e. face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews
affect the responses generated while interviewing in a qualitative research, in educational
context?’

In order to compare and contrast them, insights from the perspectives of both the sets of
participants i.e. interviewees and interviewers was taken into account in order to get the
opinions of both the sides and to understand both the sides of the coins. In order to carry out
this research, the research methodology used was primarily based on face-to-face, telephone
and email interviews since this entire research was based on the face-to-face and telephone
interviewing techniques. The types of interviews indulged in by both the sets of participants
were semi-structured because the interviews demanded diverse knowledge about the fields.
Consequently, after the interviews, the first set of participants were interviewed over email in
order to gain their opinions and experiences whilst participating in both face-to-face and
telephone interviews, while the second set of participants were asked to share their
experiences over an online survey. Once the data was collected, an inductive approach and
thematic data analysis was used to analyse the data.

The dissertation commences with the ‘Literature Review’ chapter where the research
conducted that pans around the same field of study is evaluated, followed by the
‘Methodology’ section where the methodological choice adopted, research philosophy this
research relates to, identification of participants, the sample size, data collection and data
analysis techniques used, ethical considerations taken into account, and the empirical journey
throughout the dissertation is broadly discussed. After discussing the way this research was
carried out, out the data gathered is analysed and evaluated in the ‘Data Analysis’ chapter.
Furthermore, the ‘Conclusion’ chapter summarises all the key findings and the themes
appearing as a result of the analysis and evaluation of the data.
2. Literature Review
This chapter evaluates the literature that is available on interviewing techniques by prudently
criticizing and stating the benefits of the techniques that are generally used by the researchers
for conducting interviews. The interviewing techniques that this research emphasises on are
face-to-face and telephone interviews, broadly categorized into non-technological and
technological interviewing techniques respectively. However, other than just reviewing the
studies based on these two interviewing techniques, the studies that are based on other
interviewing techniques like skype, e-mail are also reviewed in order to highlight the pros
and cons of the two techniques in question here i.e. face-to-face and telephone interviewing
techniques. Therefore, this chapter starts with a broad focus with face-to-face and telephone
interviews being evaluated in the light of email interviews and skype interviews to identify
where both these techniques lack and outshine. Further, the scope is narrowed down, and
only the literature on face-to-face and telephone interviewing techniques is reviewed in order
to compare and contrast the two techniques. Consequently, this section situates this research
within the context of the literature, and contributes in identifying the gaps in the current
literature, and explaining the relevance of this research.

2.1 Interviewing Techniques

Researchers have covered many areas surrounding the interviewing techniques, from
identifying the pros and cons of each technique individually; to comparing and contrasting
distinct techniques to identify prominence. These interviewing techniques range over a wide
spectrum including face-to-face interviews, video interviews, telephone interviews, skype
interviews and email interviews, and are usually categorized in three ways of conduct i.e.
structured interviews (pre-defined set of questions), semi-structured interviews (pre-defined
set of questions with an opportunity to divert from them) and unstructured interviews (can
mould the interview as needed) (Bricki, 2007). A significant number of studies have been
conducted hoping to identify the most effective interviewing techniques over the past two
decades. For instance, McHorney et al. (1994) compare the email and telephone interviewing
techniques in terms of cost and quality, and Deakin and Wakefield (2014) evaluate the skype
interviews in light of face-to-face interviews for two PhD research. However, recent studies
have revolved around the debate regarding which among face-to-face and telephone
interviews is better. For instance, studies by Herzog and Rodgers (1983), Sturges and
Hanrahan (2004), and Irvin (2011) show how over the last three decades these two
techniques have been compared and contrasted. Those studies have tended to analyse the two
interviewing techniques from the perspective of the quality of data, quality of the responses,
rate of the responses, cost and efficiency, types of interviews, flexibility, and medium effects
(Herzog, et al. 1983) (Meho, 2005). In the next few sections, the benefits and limitations of
face-to-face and telephone interviews are evaluated firstly in light of e-mail interviews, then
Skype interviews and then they both are explicitly compared to each other.

The following three sections will explain in greater detail the conclusion of the studies when
comparing and contrasting various interview techniques. It will conclude that ultimately the
best technique will depend on the type of data the researcher wishes to gain.

2.1.1 Face-to-face Interviews and Telephone Interviews vs Email Interviews

In this section, the pros and cons of face-to-face and telephone interviews are identified in
the light of studies that have been conducted over the years, which compare and contrast
face-to-face interviews, telephone interviews and email interviews. For instance, pointing
out the cons of face-to-face interviews, Curasi (2001), Meho and Tibbo (2003), Murray
(2004), and Murray and Harrison (2004) discovered that the emphasis put by the participants
on the research questions in an email interview was much higher than in face-to-face
interviews because the responses provided were much denser. The participants were found to
be more comfortable sharing their thoughts and experiences over the emails than during
natural conversations, which added to the quality of responses, subsequently putting higher
emphasis on the questions. This was because in natural conversations, some participants
found it difficult to put their thoughts into speech and also because they had to be
spontaneous with their responses which gave them very less time to come up with answers
that would completely answer the questions. Moreover, on the similar lines, they also found
that the responses generated by the participants during an email interview were very
measured and thoughtfully mediated. However, Young et al. (1998), Karchmer (2001) and
Murray (2004) state that it does not underline that the richness of face-to-face interviews is
lower than email interviews, because unlike face-to-face and telephone interviews, email
interviews allow both the researcher and participants to thoughtfully frame and answer
questions respectively. Additionally, Curasi (2001) found that even though the participants
have the time to thoughtfully frame their answers, some participants delivered very short and
concise answers whereas others delivered as detailed account of their experiences, thoughts
and feelings as face-to-face interviews.

Similarly, Meho and Tibbo (2003) revealed that the quality of information collected from
email interviews i.e. when the interview questions were emailed to the participants to seek
answers, was so high that when face-to-face interviews were conducted, no new information
that was not already discovered was collected. Highlighting the cons of face-to-face and
telephone interviews further, email interviews eliminate the differences based on the age,
attire, sex, incapacities, gestures, or behaviours, that could arise between the interviewer and
the participants while using other techniques,. For instance, Murray and Harrison (2004),
contend that because of the self-consciousness about their looks or motion and talking
incapacities, their prospective participants i.e. stroke survivors were not prepared to
participate in face-to-face interviews. Moreover, email interviews give participants a
platform to share delicate happenings, experiences, or individual features (e.g. deficiency of
English expertise, complicated family relationships, academic complications,
discrimination), and therefore can lead to individuals opting to choose into participating in
the research. These experiences are difficult to share whilst in face-to-face and telephone
interviews (Kim et al, 2003). Bowker and Tuffin (2004) suggest, therefore, that email
interviews have an upper hand over other techniques when it comes to attaining personal
information, subsequently benefitting the research as a whole. It must be mentioned however
that this platform of facilitation of personal information sharing can sometime hit roadblocks
because the effectiveness of every individual’s sharing skills varies. Some individuals are
good at writing but not that good at conversing, while some are good at conversing but not
good at writing. Thus, individuals who cannot write would find it difficult to project their
personal information or experiences into text, even if they are willing to (Karchmer, 2001).
Moreover, the aforementioned claims are predominantly context based, and would vary from
context to context. These claims are relevant here because the context is sensitive, however
they might not hold true in a different context. Thus, it is really difficult to confine these
claims as cons of face-to-face and telephone interviews.

Panteli (2002), and Robert and Denis (2005) state that the quality of the mediums used for
interviewing is one of the most significant dissimilarities between e-mail, face-to-face and
telephone interviews as the quality of the information collected is highly dependent on the
quality of the medium and that a medium increasing the interaction of individuals could be
more useful. They find that the quality of the medium is increased if there is a greater
capability of those mediums to encourage communication and feedback, and to allow the
interaction among individuals using various types of multi-sensory signs. Therefore,
according to Schneider et al (2002), pointing out the pros of face-to-face and telephone
interviews, the quality of data delivered by face-to-face interviews is anticipated to be the
highest, followed by telephone interviews and the least in e-mail interviews. The
aforementioned anticipation holds true since face-to-face interviews allow the interpretation
of facial expressions, body language, and making eye connection, hence leaving graphic and
non-verbal signs; and telephone interviews allow the hearing of voice of the participants,
hence leaving vocal cues. Clearly, none of these can be achieved using e-mail interviews as
the participants and the researchers do not feel a sense of embodiment and humanness like in
face-to-face and telephone interviews (Selwyn and Robson, 1998). Moreover, unlike in email
interviews where explicit knowledge is shared, in face-to-face and telephone interviews, the
information and data that is shared is tacit knowledge (knowledge that is hard to put in
writing), hence making the sense making of the data easier. Therefore, email interviews miss
out on tacit knowledge, which can be achieved using the other two techniques (Markham,
2007).
It can be seen that email interviews have an advantage in their ability to provide
comprehensive and potentially less biased data while face-to-face and telephone interviews
would help with gathering tacit information.

2.1.2 Face-to-face Interviews and Telephone Interviews vs Skype Interviews

In this section, the pros and cons of face-to-face and telephone interviews are identified in
the light of studies that have been piloted over the years, which compare and contrast face-to-
face interviews, telephone interviews and skype interviews. This comparison is considered
significant to understand face-to-face interviews better because both face-to-face and Skype
interviews are visual interactions, however Skype interviews are technologically driven and
face-to-face are not. As per Hanna (2012), interviewing via Skype provides the benefits of
both the reach of telephone interviews as well as the visual appeal of the face-to-face
interviews. However, despite the aforementioned benefits, it is difficult for the interviewer to
build a bond with the participants using an online medium. Highlighting the pros of face-to-
face interviews, Chen and Hinton (1999) and Hay-Gibson (2009) argue that even though
skype interviews allow video calling, this bond can affected by the lack of visual signs. For
instance poor connections, dropping out of the calls and other similar technological glitches
can hinder the process of building a rapport, which is comparatively much easier in face-to-
face interviews. Moreover, Saumure and Given (n.d.) argue that this hindrance in the
building of bond could be because of the time lags encountered while interviewing using
Skype. Moreover, even though the video calls enable the participants and the interviewer to
see and hear each other, it circumvents various customs of traditional face-to-face interviews
like hand shaking, having a coffee etc., as seen in a study conducted by Deakin and
Wakefield (2013).

It also showcases the experiences of two PhD students carrying out their individual research
using both skype and face-to-face interviews. During these interviews, they encountered
various problems while building a bond with their research participants, however it did not
affect the richness of their conversations because they deemed the data generated to be of
high quality as it revealed many key points to help them with their research. Therefore, the
contention of Denscombe (2003) that there exists very little difference between the richness
of the data attained by Skype interviews and traditional interviews is reinforced by this study.
Contrastingly, in some cases, the PhD students discovered that the building of bond was
more successful and easier in skype interviews than it was in face-to-face interviews, going
to prove that the building of bond also depends a lot on the personalities of both the
researchers and the participants. Therefore, it was concluded that only in cases where the
participants are shy and keep to themselves, interviewing via skype is more likely to hinder
the bonding. This hindrance was avoided by the two PhD researchers by sharing a series of
emails with the participants to build a relationship with them prior to the interview,
subsequently redefining the entire process of building a bond and follow up interactions
between the both. These efforts were not made by the PhD researchers in case of face-of-face
interviews because of the higher likeliness of building a bond in such interviews.

There were, however, occurrences in both the PhD studies that Skype was used just for audio
calls and therefore bore a resemblance to an old-fashioned telephone interviewing call. Prior
to the interviews, the participants were given a choice of whether they would prefer skype
with video or skype without video. Highlighting the pros of telephone interviews over face-
to-face interviews, there were some participants who opted for being interviewed without the
video as seeing themselves on the screen could lead to nervousness or may cause discomfort.
Moreover, both the studies encountered ‘drop outs’ because of the audio problems and video
lagging or entirely stopping, subsequently confirming that the technology plays a pivotal role
in carrying out such interviews. The impact of technology on such interviews can also be
comprehended by the facts that for one of the PhD researcher, 5 per cent of the participants
who agreed for the interview over skype did not turn up for the interview. Similarly, for the
second researcher, this number was as high as 40 per cent. Moreover, even after a string of
emails sent to them by the researchers, no responses were received from those participants.
Contrastingly, 100 per cent of the participants who agreed for face-to-face interviews for
both the studies turned up. Emotions like guilt, or regret play a huge role here because if the
participants have agreed for an online interview, the likeliness of them going through such
emotions is lower than the participants who committed for face-to-face interviews,
Moreover, circumvention of face-to-face interviews gets more difficult if it has been
organised in the participants’ vicinity or workplace (Deakin and Wakefield, 2013).

2.1.3 Face-to-face vs Telephone Interviews

As seen above, the literature that compares various interviewing techniques is available in
abundance, however this section and more precisely this research emphasises on comparing
and contrasting telephone and face-to-face interviews. There is plenty of literature that
compares the face-to-face and telephone interviewing in particular, but most of those studies
have been on quantitative data. Such comparisons have been studied in arenas like self-
reports of alcohol and/or illegal usage of drugs (Aquilino, 1992, 1994; Midanik et al., 1999;
Greenfield et al., 2000) and other areas include health and learning settings, including home
economists (Harvey, 1988; Tausig and Freeman, 1988; Miller, 1995). This particular
research however, is qualitative and in educational context, one which has not been looked
into by many researchers.

Even though a large pool of research finds that the hands-on and ethical benefits of telephone
interviews as well as face-to-face interviews are huge, the studies including Herzog and
Rodgers (1988), Groves and Kahn (1980) among others that conclude with telephone
interviews not as good as face-to-face interviews weigh more. Conventionally, the telephone
interviewing technique has been deemed as inappropriate for qualitative interviewing
according to the methodological primers (Gillham, 2005; Rubin and Rubin, 2005). This is
because the telephone interviews specifically involve the absence of face-to-face
communication, thus limiting the ‘natural’ experience and preventing the connection
between the interviewer and interviewee from growing (Gillham, 2005; Shuy, 2003).
Another limitation stated by Fielding and Thomas (2008) and Gillham (2005) is based on the
lack of profundity of implication that can be transferred because of the absenteeism of visual
indications. Since telephone interviews are more draining, with attentiveness levels difficult
to maintain, the telephone interviews are deemed to be much briefer by Gillham (2005) and
Shuy (2003). For instance, a study conducted by Jordan et al. (1980) revealed that telephone
interviews involve “more missing data on family income, more acquiescence, evasiveness,
and extremeness response bias, and more and somewhat contradictory answers to checklist
questions” (p218–19). There are studies including those conducted by Berg (2007), Gillham
(2005), Gray, Williamson, Karp, and Dalphin (2007) and Ruane (2005) which claim that
telephone interviews must follow a particular set of questions and the interview has to be
structured because the follow up questions may hinder the flow of the interview. In cases,
where the data collection and analysis has to be detailed and in depth, this could prove to be
a stumbling block for the research in terms of data.

Herzog and Rodgers (1988) researched the impact of the medium of interviews i.e. face-to-
face and telephone interviews on the responses of the older adults. It questions the quality of
the communication and of the data collected using telephone interviews, and subsequently
deems qualitative research via telephone interviewing as a methodological compromise.
Even though this study is quite old, the results should not have changed too dramatically as
the mediums compared have remained the same. The study revealed that quite a few
responses received were where the respondent said that ‘I don’t know.’ Moreover, the
number of ‘I don’t know’ responses received were higher in telephone interviews than in
face-to-face interviews. These responses were almost three times higher in telephone
interviews. Furthermore, both sets of respondents that were interviewed i.e. older than sixty
years and younger than sixty years old revealed the same results. Herzog and Rodgers (1988)
claim that there are various other studies conducted by Groves and Kahn (1979), Jordan,
Marcus and Reeder (1980) that show similar results. A study conducted by Herzog and
Rodgers (1983) prior to this also revealed results that exhibited face-to-face interviews as
better than telephone interviews. Other than revealing that the number of ‘Don’t know’ and
‘Not ascertained’ answers were high in telephone interviews, the study also revealed that the
response rate of the number of open-ended questions was also very low in telephone
interviews when compared to face-to-face interviews. Additionally, the research concludes
that the response rate of the older people in agreeing for the telephone interview is lower than
agreeing for a face-to-face interview.
Most of the research conducted in this field is out-dated and there has not been a lot of
research in this area in recent years. One study conducted in 2011; by Irvine (2011) compares
the face-to-face and telephone interviews based on 3 D’s i.e. Duration, Dominance and
Depth. The four important factors that this study has taken into consideration, while
comparing and contrasting these two interviewing techniques were as follows:
 The duration of interviews
 The amount and balance of researcher and participant talk
 The ways that the researcher displayed attention and interest
 The incidence of misunderstanding or requests for clarification
 The patterns of turn-taking and incidence of speaker overlap (Ervine, 2011, p.205)
The study was a qualitative research conducted to understand the experiences of people in
managing mental health and employment. The research found that the duration of face-to-
face interviews was higher than telephone interviews. On an average, the face-to-face
interviews were fifteen minutes longer than telephone interviews. In terms of the balance of
talk between the interviewer and the interviewee, the study found that in face-to-face
interviews, the participant talked more than in telephone interviews. Moreover, it was also
noted that in face-to-face interviews, the interviewer talked for ten-thirteen per cent of the
entire duration of the interviews whereas in telephone interviews, the number jumped to
sixteen-twenty four per cent. One prominent benefit of face-to-face interviews that this study
highlights is that in such interviews, the acknowledgement received by the participant, for
instance, ‘hmm’, ‘yeah’, ‘right’, and ‘okay’ is more frequent than it is in telephone
interviews. This acknowledgement enables the participants to discuss their answers in detail
rather than stopping abruptly.

As seen above, there is an abundance of research which demonstrate the disadvantages and
pitfalls of telephone interviewing technique. However, there are other studies that look at the
brighter side of telephone interviews. Studies conducted by Weissman et al. (1987), Tausig
and Freeman (1988), Fenig and Levav (1993), Sobin et al. (1993) and Greenfield et al.
(2000) all make a common claim based on their results that there are no noteworthy
variances in the responses generated by face-to-face and telephone interviews. Miller (1995)
makes a statement that “telephone interviews are not better or worse than those conducted
face-to-face” (p. 37). Furthermore, there are many situations in which telephone interviews
could be a very beneficial choice. Robson (2002), Shuy (2003), Ruane (2005) and Fielding &
Thomas (2008) all concentrate on the ‘resources saving’ advantage of telephone
interviewing. According to them, the telephone interviews are both cost and time effective
since they do not require travelling, subsequently allowing the researchers to target different
sectors of widely geographically located audience.

In research settings where the physical presence of the researcher for interviewing is either
dangerous or not viable, telephone interviews play an enormous role. Furthermore, Holt
(2010) discusses the methodological, hands-on and conceptual benefits of telephone
interviewing and goes on to claim that they offer a feasible alternative to the face-to-face
interviews. The facts that are considered by many to be a weakness of telephone interviews,
for instance, missing out on the physical intricacies, Holt deems as strengths. He finds that it
helps the researcher to ‘stay at the level of text’ rather than forcing contextual information on
data. Moreover, another advantage from the long list of advantages that he states is that
telephone interviews allow the flexibility of time to the research participants. Since, most of
the research participants are likely to have a hectic schedule, it gives the participants the
liberty to alter the date and time of the interview, while in face-to-face interviews, the
participants feel obliged to attend the interviews because of the efforts made by the
researcher to travel the distance for the interview (Holt, 2010). As per Creswell (1998),
telephone interviewing allows the researcher to gain access to the participant, and despite the
lack of visual cues, considers it better than not having a feasible medium to communicate
with or having no access to the participant at all.

Researchers like Opdenakker (2006), Stephens (2007) and Holt (2010), among many others
have concluded over the last fifteen years that telephone interviews are at par with face-to-
face interviews as a result of the practical contemplations after using telephone interviews for
qualitative research. They contend that their research has led to effective social
communications, has yielded valuable information and has supported facts. Among the
studies conducted over the last fifteen years, telephone interview data was found to be
“unexpectedly rich” by Chapple (1999, p91), “the quality and quantity of data was not
noticeably different between face-to-face and telephone interviews” was the conclusion by
Sweet (2002, p63), and according to Stephens (2007, p211), his telephone interviews
collected “excellent data” and attained correspondingly “friendly rapport” as face-to-face
interviews. Therefore, the large pool of research which concludes that the idea that telephone
interviewing techniques are inappropriate for qualitative research has been falsified over the
years, by numerous studies discussed above.

It must be stated, however, that these research seem to have attained their results based on
extensive and allusive contrasts rather than well-defined ones. For instance, a study by
Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) reveals that the quality of data that achieved via telephone
interviews was as good as that achieved via face-to-face interviews. However, the
participants chosen for telephone interviews were recruited using face-to-face interviews.
Additionally, rather than actually contrasting both face-to-face and telephone interviews
empirically, some of the studies intrinsically provide contemplations on telephone interview,
without taking into account face-to-face interviews. The results attained by only a few
researchers in their studies have thorough accounts of the methodical strategy used in order
to draw those conclusions. In spite of the arguments put forward for and against face-to-face
and telephone interviews, there are very few studies that investigate into the variances in the
course and results of the qualitative telephone vs. face-to-face interviews analytically and
empirically. Therefore, hitherto, there has been a deficiency of qualitative methodological
literature that has carried out a detailed, direct and empirical contrast of telephone and face-
to-face interviews. This arena has consequently gathered comparatively petite mindfulness in
the methodological literature and therefore remains an area of exploration (Irvine, 2011).
Moreover, the secondary research conducted shows that the context in which this research
i.e. educational is carried out has not been touched upon by many researchers. Therefore, this
study aims to fill that gap in the existing research.
3. Methodology
The conduct of research may be viewed as a research philosophy subscribed to, research
strategy implemented and instruments used for achievement of an objective- the research
objective(s) - and the quest for the solution of a problem - the research question.
The research question and objectives have been outlined previously. This chapter aims to
achieve the following:
 Elaborate on the research strategy and the research methodologies chosen;
 Present the research philosophy;
 Familiarize the reader with the research instruments used for arriving at the targets;
 Empirical journey of how the research area was chosen and how the research was carried
out;
 Ethical considerations taken into account.

3.1 Methodological Choice

A very important aspect of carrying out a research is the type of methodology to be used as it
is the methodological choice of the researcher that sets the path for the data collected. This
research is primarily based on the data collected based on the experiences of the participants,
therefore making the choice of adopting qualitative methods appropriate. Different types of
research demands different kinds of data to reach their objectives. Some research are
predominantly qualitative, some quantitative, while some use mixed-methodology
approaches (Punch, 2005). It is difficult to define ‘qualitative research’ as, per Creswell
(2007), the term changes iteratively. It is, however, clear that the goal of qualitative research
is the detection, description and inception of notions/concepts about the phenomenon under
examination as well as the comprehension and description of communal configurations, as
Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2006) describe. Furthermore, the streams of interest of the
qualitative researchers revolve around the configuration of individuals and their contexts,
and the sense making of occupiers of these contexts through signs, social structures, customs,
etc. Berg (2007) states that the researchers can use the qualitative methods to participate in
with their apprehensions and observations of others, and to notice how individuals shape
their everyday lives and make them significant. Furthermore, it is deemed by Tracy (2010)
that a qualitative approach needs theoretic finesse and methodological thoroughness,
subsequently claiming that the researcher picks a challenging alternative by choosing to base
the research on qualitative methods. Thus despite the difficulty in defining ‘qualitative
research’, Creswell (2007) ultimately concludes that qualitative research ventures share some
mutual traits like natural setting, multiple sources of data, inductive data analysis, researcher
as key instrument, participants’ meanings, interpretive inquiry, an emergent design, a holistic
account, and theoretical lens.

In order to attain the goals set out for a qualitative research, different techniques of gathering
data range can be used i.e. interviewing people, focus groups, content analysis, Ethnography,
or a blend of distinct techniques (Hancock, 2009). These various techniques like face-to-face,
email, telephone, skype bring together different aspects of data as well as different
perspectives to look at the data. For instance, interviews are paired with the observations in
order to understand the behaviours and responses of the participants better. Similarly, more
than one interviewing technique can be used to attain the data and goals of a qualitative
research. All interviewing techniques have their benefits and weaknesses, and could vary
across structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews, however if used together,
they can provide a firm foundation of collecting high quality data (Axin and Pearce, 2006).
Nonetheless, the use of multiple interviewing techniques is often unsuitable or infeasible
according to McEvoy and Richards (2006), and therefore there have been a lot of studies as
discussed in the literature review, conducted to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of
various interviewing techniques. This research too aims at analysing face-to-face and
telephone interviewing techniques, which in itself are data collection tools usually associated
with qualitative research, subsequently making the choice of using qualitative methodology
for this research very straight forward (Punch, 2005).

3.2 Research Philosophy

The view about the practice of collecting, studying and using the data is called a research
philosophy. The common opinion that no lone methodology of research is fundamentally
better than another has led to many authors rooting for amalgamation of research methods
for the purpose of enhancing the quality of research. However, in this research, a
methodological monism, i.e. the insistence on using a single research method, has been
adopted. The research philosophy adopted here is ‘interpretivism’ since the relevance of the
research conducted to the research question is essential for this study. Moreover, in this
research, utilization of qualitative research is prominent, whereas quantitative data and
operationalization (use of measures) are not imperative. The paradigm related to non-
numerical narratives i.e. qualitative studies is predominantly interpretivist, subsequently
making this research interpretivist too. Furthermore, the research techniques used in this
research are in congruence with the philosophy of interpretivism (McEvoy and Richards,
2006). For instance, according to Philip (1998), the vital aspect of the ‘interpretivist’
research is the communication amid the researcher and the participants. Likewise, this
research also is majorly based on the interactions between the interviewer and the
interviewee as it emphasizes on the role of medium of interviewing techniques on the quality
and quantity of the data collected.

In ‘interpretivist’ research, in order to select the participants, the purposive selection is used.
Similarly, in this research, the focus is on choosing the participants with the similar
designations in different organizations, so that the questions asked are same and relevant for
the participants from the same working field. In other cases, if the same set of questions are
asked to people from different designations, it would harm the integrity of the responses as
not all the participants would be well-informed about the area the questions are formed
around (Goering and Streiner, 1996) (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Furthermore, McEvoy and
Richards (2006) claim that the research techniques used for ‘interpretivist’ research are
small-scale and for this research too, similar research techniques are used i.e. face-to-face,
telephone and email interviews. Lastly, this research aims to comprehend the opinions of the
participants based on their experiences of being in face-to-face and telephone interviews,
subsequently aligning with the ‘interpretivism’ philosophy, which according to Richardson
(2012) is an approach where the researcher has to make an effort to view the world through
the eyes of the participants. Also, since the data generated will be subjective and contextual
due to the nature of this research, the ‘positivist’ philosophy does not fit the bill because
according to Hammersley (2007), in positivist theory, there is a supporting theory adopted
which allows the recognition of complete truth only, which is not the case here.

3.3 Participants
Since, the area of research that the interviews were based on was ‘data center efficiency’, the
questions prepared for the interviews and the responses expected were very sensitive and
required a lot of expertise in that area by the participants. Therefore, the participants needed
for this study had to be the individuals in charge, and with all-inclusive knowledge about the
functioning of the data centers. The obvious choice of participants was the employees higher
up the chain, with access to all the information. Four participants (two face-to-face
interviews and two telephone interviews) from the similar area of work as the set of
questions were the same for all, were chosen. So, for the interviews the emphasis was given
on choosing participants like ‘Data center managers’, ‘Infrastructure leaders’, ‘Storage and
Virtual Servers’ team leaders.’ As Hales (1986, p95) puts it, managers execute
expert/technical and common/managerial work and this study needed participants who
possessed and could carry out these inclusive duties like “acting as figurehead and leader of
the organizational unit, liaison: the formation and maintenance of contacts, dandling
disturbances and maintaining work flows, and monitoring, filtering and disseminating
information.” These managers formed the first set of participants which would give the
perspective of the individuals being interviewed.

The other set of participants that this research concentrates on are the individuals who carried
out the interviews i.e. interviewers, in order to understand both the sides of the story. Alike
the first set of participants where the participants were from the field to ensure the integrity
of the interviewing process, this set of participants were ensured to be interviewing the
individuals from the same field and at similar positions i.e. people working high up the chain
in the field of enterprise software and technology solutions. Four interviewers, who
interviewed eight people formed the participants in this set for the research. All the four
participants had similar questions and conducted two interviews each (one face-to-face and
one telephone), therefore they pose as the appropriate participants for this research as the
insights this research needs from the participants is their views and experiences on both the
interview techniques.

3.4 Sampling
The size of the sample for a research varies with the magnitude of the research and is based
on many factors like time and cost, rather than authenticity and fittingness according to
Bryman (2008). In this research, due to the availability of limited time and resources and the
necessity for the results to be authentic, the sample size is cooperated. Larger sample sizes
result in a better understanding of the data and also are less disposed to inaccuracies.
However, with the limited time in hands and resources, an attempt to target a larger sample
may have led to the research not completed or led to mistakes in analysing the data.
Therefore, targeting a smaller sample seemed more feasible, but the smaller sample came at a
cost that the results generated as a part of this research would not necessarily hold true for a
larger sample size according to Blaikie (2000).

There are various sampling techniques studied in the literature like ‘Quota Sampling’,
‘Convenience Sampling,’ ‘Purposive Sampling’ among others. However, both quota
sampling and purposive sampling are much suited for the large sample sizes according to
Bryman (2008) and Northeastern University (n.d.) respectively, and therefore are not
relevant in this case as the sample size is relatively smaller. That leaves us with convenience
sampling, which according to Brannen (1992) involves the participants that the researcher
might personally know, leading to higher response rates, which is the case here because the
participants in the second set of participants are the researcher’s colleagues. Furthermore,
Bell and Bryman (2007) claim that in convenience sampling, rather than selectively choosing
the participants, it could be the case that they might be the only ones available.
3.5 Data Collection Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods to be used to collect the data significant in
order to achieve the objective of the research and answer the research questions.

3.5.1 Semi-structured Interviews

After the identification of first set of participants, since the main objective of the research is
to analyse the face-to-face and telephone interviewing techniques itself, four interviews were
carried out (two face-to-face and two telephone). These interviews were primarily carried out
as a part of the first phase of the research internship, therefore semi-structured interviews
were thought to be most appropriate as semi-structured interviews allow a predefined set of
questions, with the scope of asking other follow-up and relevant questions, subsequently
allowing the researcher to extract deep and sensitive insights. (Hancock, 2009). Moreover,
since as a part of the interviews, broader questions can be asked, consequently leading to
gaining a better understanding (Punch, 2005). These semi-structured interviews did not
directly contribute towards the data for this research, but it was based on the experiences of
interviews that the subsequent e-mail interviews (also based on the same participants as
semi-structured interviews), discussed in the next section, were based.
On the other hand, the second set of four participants also conducted eight semi-structured
interviews (one face-to-face and one telephone each). However, this research does not have
any involvement with those interviews, unlike the interviews with the first set of participants.
This research only seeks to understand their opinions on both the interviewing techniques
they used to conduct the interviews. For this matter, online surveys were conducted as
discussed in the further sections.

3.5.2 E-mail Interviews

After the first set of participants were interviewed, the quality of data generated was briefly
analyses and further, they were interviewed via an email where they had to answer questions
related to their experiences and opinions about the interviewing techniques in the broader
aspect and how the responses would have changed had the interviewing technique been
different. This provided the insights from the interviewee’s point of view. The e-mail
interviewing technique was used for this purpose because it does not take too much of the
participant’s time and moreover, increases the response rate because in case of other
mediums like interviews, it would have become important to schedule a meeting, which
would not have been as time-efficient for the researcher or for the participant (Curasi, 2001).
3.5.3 Online Surveys
Unlike the first set of participants, for the second set of participants who were the
interviewers, online surveys were deemed to be the best way to get insights because they
were Masters Students working on their dissertations. The first set of participants, email was
the best way of contacting them as they are faculty members at different organizations and
therefore used to checking their emails regularly as it is a part of their job. However, this is
not the case for the second set of participants, who for this case preferred to share their
opinions over online surveys then emails. This was because, according to them, online
surveys were more convenient in a way that while answering the questions, they might need
to look at the questions more than once and online surveys allowed this simultaneous looking
up of questions and answering them. Also, alike the first set of participants, surveys are also
considered time-efficient (Fricker and Schonlau, 2002). From the researcher’s point of view,
the data collected via an online survey is relatively easier to sort than email interviews
because the online tools used to build the surveys come with features that pre-arranges the
data in a tabular form.

3.6 Data Analysis Method

The data collected using the aforementioned methods, then has to be analysed and made
sense out of in order for it to be able to aid the research. Therefore, this section provides an
overview of the data analysis methods to be used for this research.

3.6.1 Inductive Approach

The first step after the data collection, was making sense of the data. In order to do that
suitable analysis techniques had to be used to analyse data in the best way possible. There
were two sets of data generated in this research. First set of data was from the interviewee’s
perspective whereas the second from the interviewer’s point of view. Therefore, the primary
step of analysis was to analyse the data within the two sets independently in order to
compare and contrast the face-to-face and telephone interviewing techniques. On the
contrary to the first step, the other set of analysis that needed to be performed was not
independent and needed the comparison and contrast of the face-to-face and telephone
interviewing techniques from both the perspectives of the first set of participants i.e.
interviewees and the second set of participants i.e. interviewers.

The data gathered using the data collection methods would be analysed using an inductive
approach because in this research, the opinions of the both the set of participants are to be
comprehended from their point of views as these opinions are based on their personal
experiences. Moreover, this research supports the inductive approach because as stated
earlier, the data collected is intended to be contextual and subjective in nature, and unlike the
deductive approach were ‘the reasoning starts with a theory and leads to a new hypothesis’
(Snieder and Larner, 2009, p16), it does not adopt a theory to start with, subsequently
supporting the assertion made by Blaikie (2009) that rather than choosing a theory at first,
inductive approach emphasises on conducting research and collecting data. Moreover,
Saunders et al. (2011) state that the adoption of an inductive approach does not involve any
pre-chosen theories and therefore allows attaining crucial specifics and perceptions without
the hindrance of those theories driving the interviews. For this research in particular, they
crucial specifics are of utmost important due to the small sample size and the nature of the
data to be collected.

3.6.2 Thematic Analysis

Unlike quantitative data collection where the researcher has to work around with statistics, in
qualitative data collection, the data generated is intricate, which makes it difficult for the
researcher to summarize, analyse and subsequently evaluate the data. In qualitative research,
there could be distinct responses to questions by different participants, and therefore finding
a common thread would prove to be difficult. Therefore, the analysis method that seems to
be most appropriate for this research as it is a qualitative in nature and so that the data does
not lose its meaning, is thematic analysis. This is the most suitable method for this research
because according to Boyatzis (1998, p4), it would allow ‘for encoding qualitative
information,’ subsequently making it easier to find recurring data and identifying patterns.
As discussed earlier, the data analysis approach used for this research is inductive and
according to Campbell (1988), thematic analysis is most compatible with an inductive
approach because thematic analysis allows the generation of patterns and themes from the
data itself without any theory in use. This holds true for this research, therefore making
inductive approach and thematic analysis both appropriate for this research individually as
well as collectively.

Even though Bryman (2008) claim that for the qualitative data analysis, thematic analysis is
the most widely used technique, it has its share of criticism. Wolcott (1994) makes a fair
point suggesting that the themes identified by the researcher would be from his/her
perspective, meaning that if looked at by some other researcher with his/her perspective, the
themes identified could be completely different. In support, Miles and Huberman (1984) also
make a similar assertion that while using thematic analysis, there is a necessity of a
transparency just so to understand the comprehension of the generation of themes. Moreover,
Boyatzis (1998) also questions the authenticity of the themes as they may change depending
on how researchers look at the data. However, irrespective of all the criticism, Crabtree and
Miller (1992) contend that thematic analysis forms the soul of many analysis techniques that
are being used to analyse qualitative data. They argue that there are similar techniques that
go by different names, but they all follow the principles of thematic analysis.

‘Grounded theory’ is another theory that was looked at before the thematic analysis and is
one of the most frequently and widely used qualitative data analysis technique currently,
however Glaser and Strauss (1967) argue that the grounded theory suits best to the deductive
approach as “it follows the path of logic most closely. The reasoning starts with a theory and
leads to a new hypothesis. This hypothesis is put to the test by confronting it with
observations that either lead to a confirmation or a rejection of the hypothesis” (Snieder and
Larner, 2009, p16). Since the grounded theory follows deductive approach, which would in
turn nullify the perspectives and experiences of the participants pivotal for this study, it is not
appropriate for this research.

The following table shows a clear structure of the steps that are incurred while using
thematic analysis to analyse the data, which would then be followed and explained further,
showcasing the themes it creates throughout the next chapter i.e. ‘Data Analysis.’

Phase Description of the process

Transcribing data, reading and reading the data, noting
1. Familiarising yourself with your data down initial ideas.

Coding interesting features of the data in a systematic

2. Generating initial codes fashion across the entire data set, collating data relevant
to each code.

Collating codes into potential themes, gathering all data

3. Searching for themes relevant to each potential theme.
Checking if the themes work in relation to the coded
4. Reviewing themes extracts (Level 1) and the entire data set (Level 2)
generating a thematic ‘map’ of analysis.

Ongoing analysis to refine the specifics of each theme,

and the overall story the analysis tells, generating clear
5. Defining and naming themes definitions and names for each theme.

The final opportunity for analysis. Selection of vivid,

compelling extract examples, final analysis of selected
6. Producing the report extracts, relating back of the analysis to the research
question and literature, producing a scholarly report of
the analysis.

Table 1. Phases of thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p87).

3.7 Ethical Considerations

Other than the methodological choices, another significant consideration that needs to be
taken into account while conducting research, be it quantitative or qualitative, is the ethical
choices. Goodwin et al (2003, p567) state that ethics “pervade every aspect of the research
process from conception and design through to research practice, and continues to require
consideration during dissemination of results,” hence making it an integral part of the
research practices. In this research, to ensure that the ethical issues did not arise, an ethics
form provided by the university was filled and signed, where in different aspects of ethics,
for instance consent of the participants etc. were agreed upon. This was important because it
acted as a briefing to make sure that I understood the ethical issues and abided by them by
taking needed precautions and following the protocol. The aspects that the ethical form
introduced me to and made me aware about are as follows:
 The participants would be debriefed about the research where in, they would be given a
simple and clear idea about what the research is about, how is it intended to unfold and
what role do the participants play in it. Moreover, in case participants had any questions,
then they needed to be answered.
 The conversations between the interviewer and the participants will only be recorded
with the consent of the participants.
 If the data collected were to be used in writing, then the participants’ identities would be
hidden and not be revealed under any circumstances, hence ensuring confidentiality.

Once the research was commenced, the ethical issues were not much of a concern because
attaining consent from the participants to record the conversations did not pose any problems
and was straightforward, debriefing them was easy and did not result in any issues, and the
confidentiality aspect of the ethics was clear to both the researcher and the participants too.
However, after the first two interviews, trying to schedule a third participant for the
interview was getting difficult. After a lot of efforts, finally the third interview was secured,
but it did provide some enlightenment about the fact that the ethical considerations need to
be taken into account before approaching someone for the interview as well. In this case, the
participant was not assured about the confidentiality of the identity before he was
approached, which led him to think that if his identity as well as that of the company is
revealed, then it may cause problems, which led him to decline the interview requests.
Ultimately, when he did share his ethical concern, it was then I realized and assured him that
the ethical considerations are in place for this research and his identity would not be
compromised.

3.8 Empirical Journey

3.8.1 Early Days
The type of dissertation that I had chosen was a ‘research internship.’ As a part of this type
of dissertation, a research in collaboration with a company called ‘Upside Energy’ was to be
conducted on the practices carried out by the medium sized organizations to ensure the data
center efficiency. I chose this dissertation because the field was of my interest and since I
come from a technical background, I was looking forward to the technical information I
could get from this research. Moreover, even the managerial skills like working with a
company were on offer, providing a good opportunity to gain experience. It was in mid-June
that I had my first meeting with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the company I was
doing my research with. The objectives were discussed and were consequently research
questions were decided. During the discussion, it came to light that unlike other research
internships were the students were given access to the participants to be interviewed, in this
research internship I myself had to identify the participants, get access and conduct
interviews. This looked worrisome at the time because of number of responsibilities and the
difficulties associated with them meant that more emphasis needed to be given on that
research and my dissertation took a back seat. I had a meeting with my supervisor (Yvonne)
and brought up this concern, and she gave some advises. One major advice that stood out and
one that I never received before was she telling me to convert this problem into strength by
maintaining a research diary of the problems I face and the things that go well, subsequently
using the chunks in my dissertation. Therefore, after the meeting with the CEO, I wrote in
my diary:
“This research internship seemed good at the start, but after this first meeting, it looks like it
is going to be a bumpy ride. I am not sure how I am going to cope with both the research
internship and my dissertation in such a short time. I am starting to think if I made a mistake
by choosing the research dissertation. Probably I would have been better off without it.”
3.8.2 Initial Approach
After the meeting, things got better as during a skype call with the CEO, he not only helped
to identify the first participant by suggesting to start with the Information Systems Service
(ISS) department of the Lancaster University itself, but also helping in framing potential
interview questions. An email was sent out to the ISS and to my surprise I got a quick reply
and a time for a face-to-face interview. It was my first interview and I was nervous thinking
about how to go about it. However, when the interview started, the interviewee made me
very comfortable and it seemed like a normal conversation. He shared in-depth knowledge
about the questions and the interview generated more information than at first expected. The
interview was transcribed and then sent to the CEO of the company. He was very pleased
with the outcome of the interview. Therefore, things started to look better after the first
interview, more so because the interviewee gave us ideas about who the next potential
participants could be because the participants needed for this research needed to be working
in organizations that maintain their own data centers.

The recommendation given by the first interviewee was to contact the Information
Technology (IT) department of the University of Cumbria, which was later done. As a result,
that interview was lined up as well, however it was a telephone call, unlike the first
interview. I was worried that the telephone call will pose its own challenged. While on the
call and whilst the interview was being carried out, the interviewee’s answers were very
measured, and it looked like he did not want to answer the question. The richness of the data
collected from the second interview was not at all close to the data collected from the first.
Moreover, the CEO was not happy with the data as he stated that the interview was very
disappointing.

3.8.3 Dissertation Rationale

The second interview as mentioned earlier did not go well, which led to a lot of
disappointment and soon all the negative thoughts present when the research internship
started came back to me. This phase continued for quite a lot of time because even after
emailing multiple organizations, and messaging people over LinkedIn, no interviews could
be lined up for a month. Moreover, I needed to finalize a dissertation topic, which I could not
do because of the uncertainties surrounding the research internship itself, as well as my
inability to find an appropriate topic. It felt like the second interview was like a curse, after
which nothing good came my way, however soon it turned out to be a blessing in disguise.
All it needed was a change of perspective. Just like when Yvonne told me to maintain a
research diary and turn my problems into strengths, I did the same in this case.

Dwelling back at how bad the second interview was, I realized that the difference between
the data generated could be because of the different interviewing medium used. The
responses probably would have been better if instead of the telephone interview, the second
interview would have been a face-to-face one. I discussed this idea with Yvonne and she
supported the idea and sounded more excited than I was. Following are the two contrasting
pieces of text I wrote in the research diary, some days before the meeting in mid-July (1) and
then after the meeting in early August (2) respectively:
1. “Things have not been going well for me recently. My other colleagues have started their
dissertations. Some of them even have 5000 words and I have not even decided my topic
yet. I am starting to get worried now. I do not know whether the topic I have in mind will
be appropriate and would be validated by Yvonne. Looks like time will tell.”

2. “Wow! I don’t believe that after all this, I have finally decided on a topic. I feel so good
that I am going to treat myself with a day off. I am really glad that Yvonne and I were on
the same page with this topic. I should start with my literature review as soon as possible
now.”

After that point, things started to look easier because I could at least get started with my
dissertation. Moreover, with the help of a friend, I could line up another two interviews in
Nigeria and United Kingdom (UK), which were telephone and face-to-face respectively. Not
only did this help my research internship but also my dissertation as it emphasized on
comparing these two techniques. The CEO was happy because an interview from Nigeria
added a different dimension to the research, wherein the data center practices in UK and
Nigeria could be compared as well. Ultimately, what started on a negative note for me
personally, by the end of it turned out to be the best experience I could have had, because not
only did I gain experience working in a business environment, but also learnt to always look
at the brighter side and look at things from a different perspective if you do not find an
answer.
4. Data Analysis
4.1 First set of Participants i.e. Interviewees
As stated earlier in the methodology chapter, the data analysis method used here is thematic
analysis. As a part of this method, the data collected is read over and over again; further,
useful chunks are extracted from it and then are codified as can be seen from the table below:

Data Chunks Codes

Seeing a person and gauging physical reactions is important [1] Rapport building
certainly for a first meeting where the individual is unknown to [2] Non-verbal cues
them. [3] Comfort level
Interviewee 1: Face-to-face Interview

I always prefer a face-to-face interview because it guarantees that [4] Distractions

other distractions are minimized and both parties are engaged. [5] Concentration
Interviewee 1

Sometimes it is hard to express questions and answers when [6] Language barrier
crossing a language barrier but I have had no issues in our
conversations.
Interviewee 2: Face-to-face Interview

In first instance, you need to have some knowledge of the person [2] Non-verbal cues
and mannerisms. The subsequent meetings can be over the phone. [3] Rapport building
Interviewee 2

Face-to-face lends itself to a more relaxed style and return on [7] Clarity of meaning
questions and indeed a more flexible approach to questions and [8] Follow-up
exploration of points more clearly. Gaining feedback from other [9] Feedback
people is key to holding and knowing what you are saying is
relevant and appropriate.
(Interviewee 2)

In face-to-face interviews, the concentration levels are higher and [5] Concentration
therefore, less distractions. [4] Distractions
Interviewee 3: Telephone Interview

If you are not familiar to the interviewer, then face-to-face [7] Clarity of meaning
interviews are better because there is high clarity of meaning.
Interviewee 3
Since, I am familiar to the interviewer, I would have been [3] Comfort level
comfortable with a face-to-face interview. Had I not known the
interviewer, there would have been a feeling of alienation.
Interviewee 3

80% of the communication is visual rather than audio. Therefore, [2] Non-verbal cues
visual cues become important while in an interview. However, for
your questions telephone interviews was appropriate.
Interviewee 4: Telephone Interview

Irrelevant of the mode of interview, I am completely comfortable [3] Comfort level

with both the interview techniques.
Interviewee 4

Sometimes, I face a dilemma where I am unsure whether I an [9] Feedback

answering the researcher’s question or not. Therefore, irrespective
of the comfort level, it is sometimes difficult to understand the
relevance of your answers over the phone.
Interviewee 4

Table 2. Coding of data from first set of participants.

Once the coding is done, similar codes are grouped together and subsequently a theme is
generated for those particular groupings. In this case, codes [2] i.e. Non-verbal cues, [6] i.e.
Language barriers, [7] i.e. Clarity of meaning, [8] i.e. Follow up and [9] i.e. Feedback are
grouped together because they all correspond to the ‘Understanding’ theme in an interview
process. Likewise, other groupings of codes are related to themes generated based on the
nature of those codes. However, it is important to notice here that codes [8] and [9] appear in
both the ‘Understanding’ as well as the ‘Engagement’ theme. This is because follow up
questions and feedback are important for both understanding and engaging in an interview.
The pictorial representation of these steps can be seen in Figure 1 below. Once the codes are
identified, themes are generated and the codes are summarized into themes, both the
interviewing techniques i.e. face-to-face and telephone can be compared and contrasted in
light of these three themes from the perspective of the first set of participants i.e. the
interviewees.
Figure 1. Pictorial representation of coding, and relating it to themes generated for first set of
participants.

4.1.1 Understanding
The main codes generated from the data, through the thematic analysis for this particular
theme were non-verbal cues, language barriers, clarity of meaning, follow up and feedback.
Taking these codes into account, the opinions and experiences of the participants would be
evaluated to compare and contrast the two interviewing techniques in this section. According
to Interviewee 1, non-verbal cues play a very significant role in figuring out whether the
researcher is content with the responses and it subsequently helps them in altering the
answers as well as the way they are given. Therefore, he personally prefers face-to-face
interviews, because in telephone interviews, it gets difficult to validate whether the
interviewee is actually addressing the researcher’s question or wavering from it. On similar
lines, Interviewee 2 stated that in cases where he might be wavering from answering the
researcher’s question partially or completely, then getting returns from the researcher about
the relevance and appropriateness of the responses is much easier and faster. These insights
from the participants are in congruence with the findings of the study conducted by Panteli
(2002), and Robert and Denis (2005) who state that various types of multi-sensory signs
allow better interaction among individuals in face-to-face interviews that encourage
communication and feedback. Moreover, in terms of the clarity of meaning in the responses,
the opinions of Interviewees 1, 2 align, wherein they state that it is much easier to understand
the responses in face-to-face interviews; and Interviewee 3 goes on to add that the clarity of
meaning is more important when the researcher is not familiar with the interviewee, and in
such cases it is easier to understand the meaning of the responses in face-to-face interviews
than telephone interviews. However, in cases of face-to-face interviews not providing
enough clarity of meaning, Interviewee 2 added that they make asking follow-up questions
convenient and easier to gain better understanding; something that according to all four of
them is a little difficult in telephone interviews. These insights align with the ones found by
Fielding and Thomas (2008) where they state that the absence of visual indications in
telephone interviews disrupts the profundity of responses transferred between the interviewer
and the interviewee. This is because in telephone interviews, the researcher finds it difficult
to figure out whether the interviewee has finished with the response and whether he can ask
the follow-up question because of the fear of disturbing or breaking the interviewee’s flow.
This is also seen in the study conducted by Berg (2007) where he states that follow up
questions may hinder the flow in case of an unstructured or semi-structured telephone
interview.

Interviewee 2 and 3 bring up the aspect of language barrier hindering the process of
understanding and subsequently affecting the responses. Interviewee 2 stated that he did not
have any language issues while in the face-to-face interview and Interviewee 3 stated that he
did not have any issues either while in the telephone interview. However, Interviewee 2 did
mention that language barriers play a huge role in affecting the quality of the responses
because of the hindrance in understanding. Also, even though Interviewee 3 stated that he did
not have any language issues, it is important to notice that the telephone interview was
conducted in his native language. This factor is important because it could have clouded his
opinions about encountering language barriers over telephone interviews. Thus, for this
theme, the participants deemed face-to-face interviews to be more effective than telephone
interviews for the aforementioned reasons.
4.1.2 Engagement
For the theme of engagement, the codes identified were distractions, concentration, follow up
and feedback. Follow up and feedback form a part of this theme as well because they
highlight the attentiveness aspect which is very important to evaluate the engagement whilst
in an interview. Interviewee 1 prefers face-to-face interviews over telephone interviews
because according to him, the concentration levels are higher in them, subsequently leading
to higher engagement and better responses. He further added that, in case the other person is
disengaged, in face-to-face interviews, it is easy to figure that whereas in telephone
interviews, it is difficult to evaluate whether the other person is paying attention and is
engaged. These insights are in line with the outcomes of the study conducted by Gillham
(2005) which concludes that concentration levels in telephone interviews are more difficult
to endure. Moreover, both Interviewee 1 and 3 stated that in face-to-face interviews,
distractions are minimized. The reason for Interviewee 1 for this assertion was that when one
commits some time to someone and is physically present there, then letting oneself get
distracted portrays a bad image, therefore finding the need to avoid and minimize the
distractions. However, in telephone interviews, Interviewee 1 stated that the interviewees
could be doing multiple things simultaneously without the researcher even figuring it out, by
playing the absence of physical attendance to their advantage. On the other hand, for
Interviewee 3, the fact that face-to-face interviews involve high engagement in itself was
enough to adjudge that the distractions are limited. The presence of such distractions in
telephone interviews is highlighted in a study conducted by Opdenakker (2006) where he
states that the events in the surroundings is a major cause for distractions and hence, a major
disadvantage of telephone interviews. Both Interviewee and Interviewee 2 are firm believers
that concentration and distractions play a crucial role in affecting the responses generated.

Furthermore, Interviewee 2 discussed the follow-up and feedback aspects in the context of
engagement as well, where he mentioned that a follow-up question or feedback about the
responses, shows that the other person is engaged, which makes it more important for us as
participants to respect that and be as helpful as possible with our responses. On the contrary,
Interviewee 4 was very neutral about the distractions and concentrations aspects playing a
role in affecting the responses. He stated that it depends more on the individuals rather than
the mode of interviewing.

4.1.3 Comfort
For the theme of comfort, the codes identified were rapport building and comfort level. The
level of comfort between the researcher and participants was considered very important by
the participants in terms of it affecting the responses. According to Interviewee 1, when he
first meets a researcher who he is unknown to leads to lack of comfort level, which affects
his responses and the way he responds. This is the reason he stated that he prefers face-to-
face interviews to start with so that a rapport with the researcher can be built and a comfort
level can be established. This aligns with the findings of the study conducted by Hay-Gibson
(2009) which reveal that building a rapport is convenient and easy in face-to-face interviews.
He further added that this is very difficult to attain in telephone interviews, which is in
contrary to the study conducted by Stephens (2007, p211), where he states that he attained
correspondingly “friendly rapport” as face-to-face interviews. Interviewee 2’s assertion is
based on the similar lines as Interviewee 1, however according to him, once the rapport is
built after the first face-to-face interview, he does not mind the subsequent interviews to be
over the telephone because once he knows the person, his responses can be much more
effective and detailed. This statement can be validated from the fact that he also stated that if
he would have participated in a telephone interview instead, he would not have been this
detailed with his responses as he was in face-to-face. On the contrary, Interviewee 3, who
participated in a telephone interview made the same statement, with the only difference being
that he would have not been as detailed in face-to-face interview as he was in a telephone
interview because of the lack of comfort level. Deakin and Wakefield (2013) support this
through their study where the identify that some participants get uncomfortable in face-to-
face interviews due to the nervousness caused by the nature of the interaction. In case of
Interviewee 4, like in the engagement theme, he was neutral regarding his responses affected
by the comfort level as he claimed to very comfortable with either of the interviewing
techniques.
4.2 Second set of Participants i.e. Interviewers
As a part of this section, alike the last section, the data collected from the interviewers is read
over and over again; further, useful chunks are extracted from it and then are codified as can
be seen from the table below:

Data Chunks Codes

The face to face interview was much more convenient [1] Comprehensive
because I felt more connection with the interviewee and was [2] Convenient
able to understand them more. [3] Connection
Interviewer 1

The data from face to face interviews was richer, as the [4] Quality
quality of the data was very high. I judged the quality based
on key points that I got from them.
Interviewer 1

With the phone interviews, it was difficult to know if the [5] Attention
participant was giving their full attention. Also, it seemed [6] Pace
they were in a hurry.
Interviewer 1

For the face to face, it was a bit hard to keep up with the [7] Eye contact
participant and take down notes because I had to maintain [6] Pace
eye contact. [8] Hindrances
Interviewer 1

I think the face to face interview helped me get the feel of [1] Comprehensive
what the participant was saying. It was difficult in phone
interview, so was not so good an experience.
Interviewer 1

I think in face to face, I could surely tell if a respondent was [9] Comfort level
not comfortable with a question I asked. So, altering those [10] Alterations
questions was easy too.
Interviewer 1

In my personal opinion face to face interview yielded more [11] Quantity

data because I think I have an innate hesitation of some kind [12] Natural setting
that prevents me from spending too much time on the phone. [13] Deeper insights
I prefer having face-to-face conversations. Besides when I [14] Personality
did face to face interviews it was in the participant’s natural
work setting, which allowed me to get further insight into his
life.
Interviewer 1

The face-to-face interview was in depth, rigorous, and highly [13] Deeper insights
engaged, whereas the telephone interview was less engaging. [15] Rigorous
Interviewer 2 [16] Engaging

It was so much easier to establish a rapport, and to ask [17] Rapport

follow-up questions based on the participant’s facial [18] Visual cues
expressions.
Interviewer 2

Due to the technological issues, the interview was hindered [19] Technology assisted
quite a few times. [8] Hindrances
Interviewer 2

Facial expressions influence the conversation and make it [18] Visual cues
flow more naturally. It is easier for the interviewer to gauge [10] Alterations
the facial expressions and tweak the responses accordingly.
Interviewer 2

In a nutshell, I would say that telephone interviews should [20] Substitute

always be used as a 'substitute' and if possible face to face
should always be the first choice.
Interviewer 2

Lack of visual cues in telephone interviews could lead to [18] Visual cues
data loss or distortion, which could affect the data analysis [21] Non-verbal data
and interpretation, harming the quality of research findings. [22] Clarity
Interviewer 3 [23] Interpretation
[4] Quality
In face to face interview I had, interactions allowed to probe [13] Deeper insights
in more depth and based on the reactions of the participants, [18] Visual cues
I could ask follow up questions which allowed for more [24] Follow up
clarity to emerge. [22] Clarity
Interviewer 3

The absence of visual cues via telephone resulted in loss of [18] Visual cues
contextual and non-verbal data and also compromised [21] Non-verbal data
rapport, probing, and interpretation of responses. [17] Rapport
Interviewer 3 [23] Interpretation

For me, doing a face to face interview was much more [2] Convenient
convenient since not only I could meet the participant [25] Physical presence
personally but also see their expressions while talking. Face [18] Visual cues
to face was more informative than the telephone. [26] Informative
Interviewer 3

Face-to-face interviews generated better quality of [4] Quality

information. I think that was because the participant was [5] Attention
giving his undivided attention.
Interviewer 3

The participant for the phone interview talked nonstop. So, it [6] Pace
was difficult to keep up with him. [8] Hindrances
Interviewer 3

Pauses on telephone conversations are distracting. Whereas [8] Hindrances

in person if you take a pause, you can see that person's [27] Distractions
expressions and react accordingly. [18] Visual cues
Interviewer 3 [10] Alterations

In my case, both of my data was not so different, it was just [14] Personality
that the person whom I did interview via phone call was [19] Technology assisted
more talkative than the other one, so I got more from her.
But honestly, they were about the same. We used a screen
sharing software while doing it so even if they've got
something to show we could just easily share screens.
Interviewer 4

Since I met the participant personally for face-to-face [9] Comfort level
interview, I got comfortable with them, hence creating a [28] Atmosphere
good atmosphere for an interview, ensuring good responses. [4] Quality
Interviewer 4

For me personally it is hard to create a good atmosphere for [14] Personality

interview when doing it on phone. In semi or unstructured, [28] Atmosphere
you need to ask follow up questions which will be much [24] Follow up
easier if you are already in a good atmosphere.
Interviewer 4

Face to face interview can get you more information since [11] Quantity
you can easily ask questions when you feel like it [24] Follow up
Interviewer

Table 3. Coding of data from second set of participants.

The same set of steps followed for the first step of participants, are followed in this case.
Once the coding is done, similar codes are grouped together and subsequently a theme is
generated for those particular groupings. In this case, it is important to notice that code [3]
i.e. Connection appears both in ‘Understanding’ theme as well as in ‘Comfort’ theme. This is
because not only could a connection with the participant make one comfortable but would
also help in understanding him better. Similarly, code [8] i.e. Hindrances appear in both the
‘Engagement’ as well as the ‘Technology’ theme. This is because while in an interview,
either technology or other factors could cause hindrances and these hindrances could also
affect the engagement between the interviewer and the participants. The pictorial
representation of these steps can be seen in Figure 2 below. Once the codes are identified,
themes are generated and the codes are summarized into themes, both the interviewing
techniques i.e. face-to-face and telephone can be compared and contrasted in light of these
four themes from the perspective of the second set of participants i.e. the interviewees.

Figure 2. Pictorial representation of coding, and relating it to themes generated for the
second set of participants.
4.2.1 Understanding
The ‘Understanding’ theme comprises of 11 of the 28 codes generated for this set of
participants. The codes generated for this theme are [1] i.e. Comprehensive, [3] i.e.
Connection, [4] i.e. Quality, [6] i.e. Pace, [12] i.e. Natural setting, [13] i.e. Deeper insights,
[18] i.e. Visual cues, [21] i.e. Non-verbal data, [22] i.e. Clarity, [23] i.e. Interpretation and
[26] i.e. Informative. All these codes were identified to be critical by the participants in terms
of affecting the responses. For instance, Interviewer 1 and Interview 2’s opinions coincide
when it comes to the comprehensiveness of the responses. Interviewer 1 stated that face-to-
face interview gave him a better sense of understanding, subsequently leading to a better
connection. This connection ensured that the responses became much easier to come from
the respondents. Similarly, according to Interviewer 2, the respondents’ answers were much
easier to comprehend. Interviewer 2 also further added that it was difficult to understand the
respondent over the telephone interview, which affected the quality of the responses and
therefore did not have a pleasant experience. On similar lines, Interviewer 1 also stated that
the key points he extracted from the face-to-face interviews were more than he did from
telephone interviews, therefore claiming that the data was much richer in face-to-face
interviews. Interviewer 3 also deemed his experience with face-to-face interview to be better
in terms of the quality of the data he collected. All these outcomes are directly in contrast
with the studies by Chapple (1999, p91) where he found the data collected from telephone
interviews to be “unexpectedly rich,” and Stephens (2007, p211) who collected “excellent
data” through telephone interviews. Nonetheless, on the contrary to the opinions of
Interviewer 2 and 3, Interviewer 4 did not find much difference between the data he collected
from both face-to-face and telephone interviews, going on to say that he doubts if the
interviewing mode affected the responses of the respondents, which is in congruence with
the study conducted by Sweet (2002, p63) where he found that “the quality and quantity of
data was not noticeably different between face-to-face and telephone interviews.”

Another important insight gained in context of this theme that affected the responses was the
pace of the interviews. Interviewer 1 stated that in telephone interview, the respondent
seemed in a hurry, which directly affected the responses he was giving. Similarly,
Interviewer 3 stated that the respondent was talking non-stop during the telephone interview
and it was difficult to keep up with his pace. Therefore, it was difficult for him to ask his
questions and subsequently the responses were being affected. This directly conflicts with
the study conducted by Ervine (2011), where she found that the participants in face-to-face
interviews tended to talk more than in telephone interviews. While this issue was
encountered in telephone interviews by both Interviewer 1 and 2, the same issue was met by
Interviewer 1 in case of face-to-face interviewers as well where he stated that since he had to
maintain an eye contact with the respondent, it was difficult for him to take down notes at the
pace at which the respondent was talking. Therefore, even though the quality of the
responses were not affected, the quantity of the responses he collected were. Interviewer 1
faced this issue in both the interviews, which leads to the question of whether it was the
medium that affected the responses or was it the interviewer himself?

Furthermore, it was identified by Interviewers 1, 2 and 3 that the insights they gained from
the face-to-face interviews were much deeper than in telephone interviews. Both of them had
different reasons for stating that face-to-face interviews affect the responses in a positive
way. For Interviewer 1, the reason was that the face-to-face interview he conducted was in
the respondent’s natural work setting, which helped him understand the respondent better
and get high quality responses out of him. For Interviewer 2, higher engagement was the
reason that the responses were better, however ‘Engagement’ has been identified as a
standalone theme and therefore would be discussed in the next section. For Interviewer 3, the
presence of visual cues, for example the respondent’s reactions played a major role in
extracting the best responses out of the respondent. Interviewer 3 also summed up her
experience of telephone interview having a negative effect on the responses by saying that
the lack of visual cues led to the loss of contextual and non-verbal data and also
compromised the interpretation of responses. However, contrasting this, the study by Holt
(2010) discovers that telephone interviews help the researcher to ‘stay at the level of text’
rather than forcing contextual information on data.
4.2.2 Engagement
The major codes that the ‘Engagement’ themes adopts are [5] i.e. Attention, [8] i.e.
Hindrances, [10] i.e. Alterations, [14] i.e. Personality, [16] i.e. Engaging, [24] i.e. Follow up,
[27] i.e. Distractions and [28] i.e. Atmosphere. According to Interviewee 1, he believed that
in face-to-face interviews, the attentiveness levels were higher, subsequently leading to better
responses. This is ably backed by the study conducted by Shuy (2003) where he states that in
telephone interviews, it is difficult to maintain the attentiveness levels. On similar lines,
Interviewer 2 also experienced that telephone interviews were less engaging while face-to-
face involved high engagement and therefore, were more rigorous. This is supported by the
study conducted by Irvine (2011), which reveal that in face-to-face interviews, the
acknowledgement received by the participant, for instance, ‘hmm’, ‘yeah’, ‘right’, and
‘okay’ is more frequent than it is in telephone interviews, showcasing high engagement
between the interviewer and the interviewee.

Other than the attentiveness and engaging aspects, the other aspects that the interviewers
thought had an impact on the responses were hindrances and distractions. Interviewer 1
deemed face-to-face as better than telephone interviews as a whole, however, he did state
that the need to maintain an eye contact in face-to-face interview had a negative impact on
the responses as he ended up hindering the flow of the respondent. This issue has been
highlighted by Holt (2010) where he suggest that physical intricacies like eye contact etc.
should not be considered important as it would allow a researcher to stay at the level of text.
Just like hindrances, distractions were believed to affect the responses of a respondent in a
negative way as well according to Interviewer 3, but in a telephone interview. He cleared it
further by saying that pauses on the telephone interview he conducted were the major reason
for the distractions. However when the same pauses were encountered in a face-to-face
interview, he utilized them in his favor by judging the respondent’s expressions, reacting
accordingly and altering the questions. Similarly, Interviewees 1 and 2 also find that the
responses can be greatly impacted based on what questions one asks. For this purpose, face-
to-face interviews provide a better medium than telephone interviews to figure out when
more clarity about a question is required and when the questions needs to be altered for
better understanding.

The aspect of individuality was also discussed by two of the interviewers wherein
Interviewer 1 stated that he personally prefers face-to-face interviews as he finds it difficult
to get the best out of the respondents over phone because of the innate hesitation he feels. On
similar grounds, Interviewer 4 stated that he personally finds it difficult to create a good
atmosphere for an interview over a phone and therefore ends up not getting the responses
which he otherwise would have. Therefore, on a personal basis, Interviewer 4 finds that in
order to not let the responses get affected, he would prefer to conduct a face-to-face
interview. He also adds that since it is easier for him to create a good atmosphere in a face-
to-face interview, it enables him to ask follow-up questions much effectively, leading to high
quality responses. This aspect of individuality is also showcased in Deakin and Wakefield
(2013) where they state that the building of bond also depends a lot on the personalities of
both the researchers and the participants. Moreover, both Interviewers 2 and 3 also
highlighted the facilitation of follow-up questions, and subsequently high quality responses,
in face-to-face interviews. It was the presence of visual cues that made the asking of follow-
up questions in face-to-face interviews easier. Therefore, they firmly believe that the lack of
visual cues in telephone interviews is a major limitation that degrades the responses. This is
in contrast with the study by Holt (2010) where he deems the lack of visual cues to be an
advantage rather than a disadvantage.

4.2.3 Comfort
For the theme of comfort, the codes identified were convenience, connection, rapport
building and comfort level. The level of comfort between the interviewer and respondents
was considered pivotal in terms of the responses, by the interviewers. According to
Interviewer 4, it is the comfort level that drove both his face-to-face and telephone
interviews. He stated that in face-to-face interview, it was easier for him to make a
comfortable environment for the respondent. Therefore, even though the respondent was not
as talkative as the one in telephone interview, he still received as good responses as in the
telephone interview. Moreover, another important aspects to ensure the comfort between the
interviewer and the respondent were rapport building and connection. Both Interviewers 2
and 3 highlighted that rapport building was possible because of the visual cues, which
subsequently helped them get better insights out of the respondents. Both these interviewers
therefore asserted that in order to get in-depth responses, they would prefer face-to-face
interviews over telephone interviews. In addition, according to Interviewer 1, establishing a
connection is a major factor in understanding and extracting the responses, which was made
possible by face-to-face interviews, and not telephone interviews. This is because, as stated
by Gillham (2005), the telephone interviews specifically involve the absence of face-to-face
communication, thus limiting the ‘natural’ experience and preventing the connection
between the interviewer and interviewee from growing.

4.2.4 Technology
The two main codes identified for this theme were hindrances and technology assisted. These
codes were identified mainly because of the experiences of Interviewer 2 and Interviewer 4
while in a telephone interviews. For Interviewer 2, due to the technological issue of poor
connection, the telephone interview that he conducted was hindered quite a few times. This
led to a disengagement between the interviewer and the respondent, which consequently
affected the responses. Therefore, he went to assert that technology should always be used as
a substitute and so he prefers face-to-face interviews over telephone interviews. This
assertion is also supported by the studies conducted by Chen and Hinton (1999) and Hay-
Gibson (2009) , which reveal that technological glitches can hinder the process of building a
rapport that is much easier to attain in face-to-face interviews. Moreover, for Interviewer 4,
the responses were impacted in a constructive way, because his telephone interview was
assisted by a screen sharing software, which increased the richness of the responses. He
further stated that getting clarity of meaning is difficult in telephone interviews, however in
his telephone interview, the respondent could easily share screens with the interviewer in
case anything needed clarity.
4.3 Cumulative analysis of Interviewees and Interviewers
There are three themes identified that are same for both the sets of participants i.e.
‘Understanding’, ‘Engagement’ and ‘Comfort’, with only one extra theme of ‘Technology’
found in the second set of participants. This shows that most of the aspects that affect the
responses were considered to be very similar by both the sets of participants, with
‘Technology’ being significant for interviewers but not interviewees. This emphasizes on the
fact that the major reason and difference of analyzing the techniques from two different
perspectives was to gain insight into distinct perspectives and experiences of both the
interviewees and the interviewers. On a whole, the major aspects that according to the
participants played a huge role in affecting the responses were concentration, distractions,
comfort level, visual cues, technology, follow-up questions, comprehensiveness, clarity of
meaning and the personality of the interviewers and interviewees.

Both the analyses have a different take due to the different set of participants, however there
are instances where their opinions and experiences coincide. These alignments would be
discussed further. For instance, both Interviewee 2 and Interviewer 2’s opinions were aligned
on the assertion that telephone interviews should play a second fiddle to face-to-face
interviews. Interviewee 2 stated that first meeting should be face-to-face interviews in order
to ensure high quality responses, and subsequent ones can be over the phone. Similarly,
Interviewer 2 stated that face-to-face interviews should be a priority and telephone interviews
should be used as a substitute. Both Interviewee 2 and Interviewer 2’s opinions also aligned
when they highlighted the facilitation of follow-up questions in face-to-face interviews, and
its subsequent positive impact on the responses. Interviewee 1 and Interviewer 1 agreed on
the impact of comfort level on affecting the responses, stating that the comfort levels in face-
to-face interviews are higher than in telephone interviews. Interviewee 1 and Interviewer 1’s
opinions were in congruence on the engagement aspect where they state that engagement is
one of the most important aspect in an interview and one of the major reasons that could
affect the responses. They both also went on to say that as per their experiences, they found
face-to-face interviews more engaging than telephone interviews. Furthermore, Interviewee 3
who participated in a telephone interview asserted that in face-to-face interviews, there are
less distractions and therefore the responses are not affected. In congruence to this assertion,
Interviewer 3 stated that the pauses in telephone interviews are distracting whereas in face-
to-face interviews, they help in understanding the respondent better.

Other than the experiences that were in congruence, two new aspect introduced after
analyzing the second set of participants were ‘personality’ and ‘technology.’ The personality
aspect was slightly hinted towards by Interviewee 4 when he stated that it depends more on
the people rather than the medium that how the responses are affected. However, in the
second set of participants, both Interviewer 1 and 4 shared their experience about how their
hesitation over the phone and inability to create a good atmosphere over the phone
respectively, hindered their capability to extract good responses out of the respondents.
Likewise, the impact of technology was not even touched upon by the first set of interviews,
whereas in the second set, both Interviewer 2 and 4 evaluated the impact of technology.
Interviewer 2 stated that the technology hindered his experience of telephone interviews,
affecting the responses. On the other hand, Interviewer 4 stated that the technology assisted
his telephone interview and helped him extract richer responses.
5. Limitations and Recommendations
The major limitation of this research is the small sample size because of the limited time and
resources available. This means that due to the small number of participants, the conclusions
reached by this study might not necessarily reflect the opinions of a larger audience.
However, even though the sample size was small, the data collected was high both in
quantity and quality as can be seen from the analyses. The two sets of participants were both
ensured to have been interviewed regarding the same field. The rationale for doing this, like
stated earlier, was to maintain the integrity of the data collected because otherwise, the
responses received would have just been dependent on the knowledge of the person. Even
though this step taken into the research has been justified, it could pose as a potential
limitation because it was a major reason behind the small size of the participants. In future, a
larger sample size can be targeted and more perspectives could be taken into account so that
the data collected is not only high in quality and quantity, but most importantly it is also
diverse. Moreover, rather than choosing participants from one field, diverse fields could be
considered. Nonetheless, looking at this research in terms of the objectives laid out before
commencing and its scope, it can be said that complete justice has been done to the project
when the availability of time and resources are taken into account.
6. Conclusion
On balance, the findings from this research indicate that both the sets of participants i.e. the
interviewees and interviewers considered face-to-face interviews to affect the responses of
the respondents in a much more positive manner than the telephone interviews. These
findings were based on various aspects identified from data collected through both the sets of
participants. The major aspects taken into consideration to reach the results were the clarity
of information, concentration, distractions, personality, technology, comfort level, visual
cues, among others. The objective of this research was to understand how face-to-face and
telephone interviews affect the responses of the participants. The emphasis of this study was
on to compare and contrast these two interviewing techniques to reach to a conclusion. This
was to be done through the perspectives of both the interviewees and the interviewers. The
data collected from them was overwhelmingly in favor of face-to-face interviews. It does not
in any way goes to show that telephone interviews affect the responses in a negative way, but
when given a choice to both the sets of participants, they revealed that telephone interviews
are a good substitute if face-to-face interviews are not possible or feasible. However, if they
are, then they should be chosen over telephone interviews because responding over a face-to-
face interview was considered to be more comfortable, convenient, and highly engaging by
both the sets of participants.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, there are studies like Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) that
suggest the suitability and use of telephone interviews in place of face-to-face interviews.
They further assert that the interviewing techniques used for a research are majorly
dependent on the research questions. There could be research where the researcher might
have to gain in-depth knowledge about the participant itself. In such research, the telephone
interviews would not have been a suitable medium. However, this particular research was
suitable to be carried over telephone interviews. In spite of that, the majority of the
participants still preferred to choose face-to-face interviews. This is in direct contrast with
the results identified by Sturges and Hanrahan (2004). Furthermore, the advent and growth of
technology has affected the way research is carried out nowadays, on a large scale. Even
telephone interviews are technology assisted. However, in spite of being surrounded by the
technology, it is the sense of embodiment facilitated by face-to-face interviews, that was
considered by the participants to have a higher positive impact on responses than the
technology. Hence, the results derived from this research do complete justice to the research
question identified at the beginning of the research.
7. Bibliography
8. Appendix