1 Samutaxe

Case Study Interview Advantages

Email:

I just wanted to write you a brief note to thank you for all the useful tools you've provided me with in my search for a consulting career.

Thanks to you, I've recently accepted an offer at A.T. Kearney Europe, and I couldn't have done it without your help. I would specifically like to point to the simple and easy structure you laid out in your case frameworks as being extremely helpful.

After working through case material from other sources, your business situation framework stood out as one that was much easier to implement and remember during stressful case interviews.

In the end, I truly believe that the way you taught me to structure my problem solving was the determining factor in getting the offer.

I also utilized the LOMS program in my preparations, along with practicing live cases with friends.

Both were extremely helpful and it allowed me to utilize all the lessons learned in the LOMS program in real life situations.

Coming from a non-MBA background with no business experience, it became vital for my confidence to go through the LOMS program about 5-6 times, along with conducting around 40 live interviews, which was also something you encouraged.

Again, thank you for all the help and daily emails. I always took the time to read them throughout my interview process, and there was always something useful to pick up.

I also wanted to express my interest in the idea of a teleseminar. Especially coming from a non-MBA background I know you would have many valuable lessons to offer, as I would like to start preparing for my first work day, but I'm currently a little lost as to where to start in terms of what to read up on.

Any help would therefore be greatly appreciated.

 

My Reply:

Congratulations on your offer and thank you for your kind note. I am glad your preparation efforts have paid off.

For the benefit of others who will read this, I want to point out a few specific things you did that I think others could learn from.

Clearly you put in an enormous investment of time to prepare for these interviews.  Consulting is a very competitive field, with most firms receiving tens of thousands of applicants each year.

Regardless of one's natural intellect and career qualifications, I continue to be amazed by the number of emails I receive from people who put in only one or two days of preparation, got rejected and are surprised by the outcome.

To be fair, many of these people did not know about the consulting field and did not realize that preparation was necessary until a day or two before the interview.  This we can legitimately chalk about to unfortunate circumstances.

Others knew they needed to prepare, had ample time to prepare, but thought they would wait until they got the interview before doing so. The problem with this approach is you often only get 3 - 5 days notice between when you find out you have an interview and when you are expected to show up for it.

Unless you are brilliant, this is really hard to do. And I have met many people in this category who really are that brilliant. For the rest of us (myself included), it takes more time.

More commonly, someone very, very smart will prep for 3 - 5 days, and just barely pass the first round.  Then they realize that have a legitimate shot at the job, and focus really intently the next few weeks on preparation.  I have seen this happen quite a few times. But, I have also seen many where 2-3 days prep time just was not enough.

For this kind of candidate that was not burdened by unfortunate circumstances, had ample time to prepare, but chose not to prepare for a variety of reasons.

Now compare the likely performance of someone like this vs. you --- you spent the time to study my Case Interview Secrets videos (10+ hours), you went through Look Over My Shoulder® 5 - 6 times (60 hours), and you did 40 live practice interviews with a practice partner (40+ hours if someone gave you interviews, 80+ hours if you had to reciprocate and give them one too).

This is over and above the time you spent reading my emails (est. 10 hours).

So if you look at the total prep time you put in, I would guess it was somewhere between 120 hours on the low end and upwards of 160 hours on the high end.

Now if you are competing against someone with similar qualifications, and similar skills, consider the following: You put in 120 - 160 hours of preparation, and the person you compete against puts in five hours. Who is more likely to get the offer?

Common sense suggests all else being equal, the person who prepares 25 - 30 times more will have a major advantage.

This is not some super insider secret. It is just common sense. But common sense is rarely common practice.

I want to elaborate on this topic in a moment, but let me elaborate on something you mentioned. I believe that best practice is to use LOMS five times, and to start doing live practice interviews after going through LOMS one time.

It sounds like you followed this guidance from me, but I know a lot of people do not (or in some cases, do not know anyone who can practice live cases with them, so they "can not" follow this suggestion).

Let me elaborate further on why I make these recommendations.

Case Interview Secrets gives you the conceptual understanding of what you are supposed to be doing in a case. LOMS allows you to see these concepts in use in a real world setting. It allows you a role model to either emulate or to avoid.

So by following the best practice examples, you have something to emulate.

By studying the performance of candidates in LOMS who did not do well, you learn what to avoid doing.  This is very similar to why some of the pilots with the highest safety track record routinely study every airplane crash documentedin the world each month.  There is an entire magazine in the air transport field that reproduces the crash investigator's report for each crash.

A few of my friends are pilots, and they read this magazine religiously - every page, every month -- because their lives very much depend on knowing what to avoid doing.

One of the recurring themes in these crash investigations is that rarely does one mistake cause an airplane crash. Most often it is a series of mistakes -- three or four in a row -- that leads to the big crash.

(By the way, one of those is often distraction, one of the others is often unusual circumstances like unusual weather, and then one or two "pilot errors" that, given those circumstances, causes a crash, but given regular circumstances would not.)

LOMS plays a similar role (though clearly lives are not at stake, but perhaps livelihoods might be) and is the reason why I encourage both "failure" as much as "success" in terms of case interview examples.

The value of live practice is to get a chance to use what you've absorbed from LOMS under pressure and stress of a real world situation.  This is why pilots are required to fly a certain number of hours to get or maintain their qualifications.

The downside of practicing live interviews without LOMS is the lack of an efficient way to pick up role model behaviors. It is like having an untrained pilot just get in the plane and fly more often to practice -- without understanding what behaviors to emulate or avoid.

Now in case interviews, it is possible to just use live practice cases to prepare. And I do get emails from people who do just this.  All the success story emails I received from people before LOMS came out fit in this category.

Since I prepared this way myself, it is my perspective that it just takes a lot more practice cases (in particular from a very experienced interviewer) to figure out what you can pick up from LOMS in a more efficient way.

LOMS is by far the most useful if you are new to cases. It is less useful if you've already done 50 practice cases with friends who are all current or former consultants.

My recommendation is: if you are starting from scratch, try to use both approaches.

Now let me circle back to something I mentioned earlier about comparing the performance of a candidate who prepares for 120 - 160 hours vs. one that prepares for five hours.

Let me do so by sharing a story.

When I was at McKinsey, two things became very apparent to me about my colleagues.

1) It was impossible to be smarter than them.

2) It was impossible to work harder than them.

You could be as smart as them... you can work as hard as them... but it was just not possible to beat them in both.

Hence, the culture at McKinsey was very much that of being in a very high performing peer group -- kind of like the reason why top athletes love playing with other top athletes on the "All Star" team.

Now when you apply these two concepts to the interview process, here is what you will find.

In Round 1, it is possible that you are smarter than the other candidate. The quality of the Round 1 candidate pool has wider variability.

But, as you move from one round to the next, the average intellectual horsepower of the competing candidates increases.

So if you barely passed Round 1, it is unlikely you will pass Round 2 on your talent alone. The bar is moving and you will be surpassed by the bar, unless you out-prepare the competitors.

This leads me to my second point.

In Round 1, you certainly can out-work other candidates. A fair number of candidates have done little or no preparation work for the reasons stated previously.

But as you progress in rounds, a disproportionately high share of those who did not prepare get rejected, and the average prep time per candidate steadily increases from one round to the next.

This is my long way of saying that the "bar" or "standard of performance" continually rises from one round to the next.

Get used to it.

And in one of the topics I will cover in my teleseminar for new consultants, this moving performance standard continues until your first day at work, your third month at work, your first year at work, etc... (and pretty much never ends).

What I wanted to point out is your bias to prepare properly for the interview process will very much be equally useful on the job too.  Those who do well with clients spend more time preparing to do well with a new client.

The other useful trait I will mention is that I can very much tell you are very "coachable."  Being the opposite, "uncoachable," is sometimes a very big issue with very smart people -- some feel like they know everything and are unwilling to take suggestions.

I have clients in both categories. Those that are uncoachable do not last long with me. Those that are tend to lead their fields --- ending up in either the Inc 500 or having the fastest growth rate of any firm in their industry.

Being "uncoachable" is one of the leading reasons why some consultants never make it pass the first promotion.  It is not realistic to be perfect from Day 1.

The key is that those that are able to figure out their mistakes by getting feedback from others, and fixing those mistakes, improve their skills the fastest.

So the fact that you were able to take a little bit of guidance (from me) and run with it (all you) -- the latter being more important than the former -- indicates to me that you will likely do well on the job too.

So just keep that in mind and continue that practice as you head into and after your first day at work.

Additional tips for case interview preparation can be found here: https://www.caseinterview.com/case-interview-preparation

Additional Resources

If you found this post useful, I suggest becoming a registered member (it's free) to get access to the materials I used to pass 60 out of 61 case interviews, land 7 job offers, and end up working at McKinsey.

Members get access to 6 hours of video tutorials on case interviews, the actual frameworks I used to pass my interviews, and over 500 articles on case interviews.

To get access to these free resources, just fill out the form below:

Note: All registrations require you to confirm your email address.
Please type your email address carefully, entering your email also subscribes you to my Case Secrets Email Newsletter.

Feb 6, 2011

Tagged as:Case Interview Articles, case interview practice, case interview prep

Volume 7, No. 4, Art. 11 – September 2006

Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research

Raymond Opdenakker

Abstract: Face-to-face interviews have long been the dominant interview technique in the field of qualitative research. In the last two decades, telephone interviewing became more and more common. Due to the explosive growth of new communication forms, such as computer mediated communication (for example e-mail and chat boxes), other interview techniques can be introduced and used within the field of qualitative research.

For a study in the domain of virtual teams, I used various communication possibilities to interview informants as well as face-to-face interviews. In this article a comparison will be made concerning the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face, telephone, e-mail and MSN messenger interviews. By including telephone and MSN messenger interviews in the comparison, the scope of this article is broader than the article of BAMPTON and COWTON (2002).

Key words: interviews, computer mediated communication (CMC), face-to-face interview, e-mail interview, MSN messenger interview, telephone interview

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Four Interview Techniques

2.1 Face-to-face interviews: Synchronous communication of time and place

2.2 Telephone interviews: Synchronous communication of time, asynchronous communication of place

2.3 MSN messenger interviews: Synchronous communication of time, asynchronous communication of place

2.4 E-mail interviews: Asynchronous communication of time and place

3. Summary

4. Conclusions

Acknowledgement

References

Author

Citation

 

1. Introduction

KVALE (1983, p.174) defines the qualitative research interview as "an interview, whose purpose is to gather descriptions of the life-world of the interviewee with respect to interpretation of the meaning of the described phenomena". Collecting these descriptions can be done in several ways, of which face-to-face interviews are the most common. Besides Face-to-Face (FtF) interviews, interviewing by telephone is popular too. But also interviewing using the Internet is rising. Due to developments in computer technology, all kinds of computer mediated communication (CMC) tools have been developed. With CMC is meant: a process where messages are electronically transferred from a sender to one or more recipient(s), both in synchronous (in real time) and in asynchronous (independent from time and place) setting. Examples of tools used for CMC are e-mail and chat boxes (as MSN messenger), which also can be used for interviews. [1]

The experiences with the four mentioned interview techniques were gained during my research of EU funded virtual teams, from which team members were dispersed all over Europe. I tried to conduct as much FtF interviews as possible in the first place, but due to time and financial constraints this was not always possible. Also doing research on virtual teams, where FtF communication has decreased in favour of other forms of communication, paved the way for me to use other interview techniques. Although it would have been likely to establish telephone interviews, not all interviewees were in favour of it. As one interviewee remarked "We can do it (the interview) by an Instant Messaging tool as well. If it takes an hour, I think it will be better and less disturbing for my colleagues". The focus of this research was semi-structured interviews. [2]

In this article four types of interview techniques will be compared: FtF interviews, telephone interviews, MSN messenger interviews, and e-mail interviews. The focus of this article is concentrated on the ways in which the four interview techniques differ from each other, thus highlighting the advantages and disadvantages. Whenever possible, the experiences from my own interviews are mentioned. [3]

2. Advantages and Disadvantages of the Four Interview Techniques

When comparing the four interview techniques, the differences in advantages and disadvantages are on one hand related to their differences on the dimensions synchronous communication in time and/or space and asynchronous communication in time and/or space. Table 1 presents the four interview techniques related to these dimensions.

 

Time

Place

Synchronous communication

FtF

MSN messenger

Telephone

FtF

Asynchronous communication

E-mail

E-mail

MSN messenger

Telephone

Table 1: The four interview techniques divided by synchronous/asynchronous communication in time and/or space [4]

FtF interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in time and place. MSN messenger and telephone interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in time, but asynchronous communication in place. E-mail interviews are characterised as asynchronous communication in time and place. One could argue that MSN messenger and telephone interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in cyberspace. As cyberspace is defined as "the noplace" (MORSE, 1998), communication in a virtual place brings with it other advantages and disadvantages than communication in a real place, as in FtF interviews. Therefore with synchronous communication of place is meant a real place, and not a virtual place. [5]

On the other hand advantages and disadvantages of the four interview techniques are related to the technology used. [6]

2.1 Face-to-face interviews: Synchronous communication of time and place

As already mentioned, FtF interviews are characterised by synchronous communication in time and place. Due to this synchronous communication, as no other interview method FtF interviews can take its advantage of social cues. Social cues, such as voice, intonation, body language etc. of the interviewee can give the interviewer a lot of extra information that can be added to the verbal answer of the interviewee on a question. Of course the value of social cues also depends on what the interviewer wants to know from the interviewee. If the interviewer is seen as a subject, and as an irreplaceable person, from whom the interviewer wants to know the attitude towards for example the labour union, then social cues are very important. When the interviewer interviews an expert about things or persons that have nothing to do with the expert as a subject, then social cues become less important (EMANS, 1986). On the other hand this visibility can lead to disturbing interviewer effects, when the interviewer guides with his or her behaviour the interviewee in a special direction. This disadvantage can be diminished by using an interview protocol and by the awareness of the interviewer of this effect. [7]

In FtF interviews there is no significant time delay between question and answer; the interviewer and interviewee can directly react on what the other says or does. An advantage of this synchronous communication is that the answer of the interviewee is more spontaneous, without an extended reflection. But due to this synchronous character of the medium, the interviewer must concentrate much more on the questions to be asked and the answers given. Especially when an unstructured or semi structured interview list is used, and the interviewer has to formulate questions as a result of the interactive nature of communication. WENGRAF (2001, p.194) even speaks of "double attention", which means

"that you must be both listening to the informant's responses to understand what he or she is trying to get at and, at the same time, you must be bearing in mind your needs to ensure that all your questions are liable to get answered within the fixed time at the level of depth and detail that you need". [8]

FtF interviews can be tape recorded, of course with the permission of the interviewee. Using a tape recorder has the advantage that the interview report is more accurate than writing out notes. But tape recording also brings with it the danger of not taking any notes during the interview. Taking notes during the interview is important for the interviewer, even if the interview is tape recorded: (1) to check if all the questions have been answered, (2) in case of malfunctioning of the tape recorder, and (3) in case of "malfunctioning of the interviewer". In one interview I conducted I should have taken notes because I had forgotten to push the "record" button. Another disadvantage of tape recording the interview is the time a transcription of the tape recording consumes. BRYMAN (2001) suggests that one hour of tape takes five to six hours to transcribe. [9]

The synchronous communication of time and place in a FtF interview also has the advantage that the interviewer has a lot of possibilities to create a good interview ambience. In other words the interviewer can make more use of a standardisation of the situation. On the other hand this synchronous communication of time and place can bring with it a lot of time and costs. Interviewing an interviewee in a place some 200 kilometres away will take a whole day, including travelling and interviewing. It can even take more days, when the interviewee is ill and didn't or couldn't reach the interviewer in time to cancel the interview. Also the costs, i.e. travelling costs, can become very high in this way. Doing research by using FtF interviews, which have to be held all over the globe, as for example is the case when doing research in the domain of virtual teams, takes a lot of effort, time and costs, and is therefore almost impossible for one researcher. [10]

The last advantage of this interview method is that termination of a FtF interview is easy, compared to other interview methods. In the interaction between interviewer and interviewee enough clues can be given that the end of the interview is near, for example by shuffling the papers and turning off the tape recorder. An explicit way to terminate the interview is by thanking the interviewee for cooperation and asking him or her if there are further remarks that might be relevant to the topic or the interview process. This can lead to an emergent of a whole new area of information (WENGRAF, 2001). [11]

2.2 Telephone interviews: Synchronous communication of time, asynchronous communication of place

Due to the asynchronous communication of place, one of the advantages of telephone interviewing is the extended access to participants, compared to FtF interviews. MANN and STEWART (2000) make a distinction in the following categories:

  • Wide geographical access. People from all over the globe can be interviewed—of course if they have access to telephone or computer. FtF interviewing can be very expensive and takes too much time.

  • Hard to reach populations. It enables researchers to contact populations that might be difficult to work with on an FtF basis for example mothers at home with small children, shift workers, computer addicts and people with disabilities.

  • Closed site access. It is a possible means of access to people on sites, which have closed or limited access (such as hospitals religious communities, prisons, the military, and cults).

  • Sensitive accounts. Some personal issues are so sensitive that participants might be reluctant to discuss them FtF with an interviewer.

  • Access to dangerous or politically sensitive sites. With telephone, interviewers can interview people living or working in war zones, or sites where diseases are rife, without needing to grapple with the danger—and the bureaucracy—of visiting the area. [12]

Although the interviewer can interview people that are not easy to access, one of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication of place by telephone is the reduction of social cues. The interviewer does not see the interviewee, so body language etc. can not be used as a source of extra information. But social cues as voice and intonation are still available. Although social cues are reduced, enough social cues remain for terminating a telephone interview without a problem. [13]

Another disadvantage of asynchronous communication of place is that the interviewer has no view on the situation in which the interviewee is situated. Because of this the interviewer has lesser possibilities to create a good interview ambience. FtF interviews can make more use of a standardisation of the situation. Due to this lessened possibility to create a standardisation of the situation with telephone an extra disadvantage is that the interviewee can stay "visible" for other employees and managers in the organisation. As I experienced for example the interviewee was called away by his manager, so the interview had to be stopped abruptly. [14]

As in FtF interviews synchronous communication of time implies that interviewer and interviewee can directly react to what the other says. This also leads to the advantage that the interviewee is more spontaneous in his response and does not deliberate too long. But on the other hand, the interviewer has to concentrate much more on the questions that need to be asked and the answers given. [15]

Another advantage of synchronous communication of time concerning telephone interviews is, as in FtF interviews, the interview can be tape recorded. Tape recording a telephone interview depends on the equipment. A speakerphone is recommended (BURKE & MILLER, 2001). As with FtF interview the telephone interview is also time consuming due to the fact that the tape has to be transcribed. [16]

2.3 MSN messenger interviews: Synchronous communication of time, asynchronous communication of place

As with telephone interviews, due to the asynchronous communication of place, one of the advantages of MSN messenger interviewing is the extended access to participants, compared to FtF interviews (COOMBER, 1997). Although the interviewer can interview people that are not easy to access, one of the disadvantages of asynchronous communication of place by MSN messenger is the absence of social cues. The lack of some elements, as intonation, can be filled up with the use of emoticons. Before the users were able to create simple emoticons with a normal keyboard, for example a "smiley" could be made as ": )". Nowadays the keyboard gives the opportunity to create more advanced emoticons "☺". This is also the case with MSN messenger, where professionally developed emoticons can be put straight into a message.



Diagram 1: Examples of emoticons [17]

The emoticons have been culturally stipulated however, and reflect culturally specific meanings. MORRIS (1994) has shown that the same gestures in different cultures have several different meanings. Or also: for the same meanings in different cultures several different gestures can exist. Thus, when the interviewer conducts a MSN messenger interview with an interviewee with another cultural communication style, then the interviewer must pay careful attention to the use of emoticons. It cannot be assumed that these emoticons will be interpreted in a manner as meant by the interviewer. Diagram 2 shows clearly, that emoticons are not universal (AOKI, 1995).



Diagram 2: Comparison between Western and Japanese emoticons. It is notable that strong feelings, like anger, are reflected directly in the USA and Western European culture, whereas the Japanese emoticons reflect more subtle alternatives for these feelings. [18]

It depends of course on the topic of the research, and the questions asked, whether or not the lack of social cues are an advantage (or at least neutral) or a disadvantage. However, when interviewing interviewees from another culture, according to SHACHAF (2005, p.52) "the lack of nonverbal and social cues reduces miscommunication due to cultural diversity".[19]

Asynchronous communication of place has, according to BAMPTON and COWTON (2002, paragraph 18), also the advantage that they "can protect the researcher by offering a degree of anonymity, perhaps through the adoption of an (e-mail) pseudonym. A classic example of the positive effects of anonymity is a study by GERGEN, GERGEN, and BARTON (1973). In this study individuals who met and conversed in a situation where they could not see one another, sitting in the dark, disclosed much more intimate details of their lives and of the self than did those who met and conversed in a lighted room. Indeed, those who were in the darkened condition left the encounter feeling more positively about the other person, compared to a control condition in which people interacted with the lights on. This important phenomenon is called self-disclosure, or "the act of revealing personal information to others" (ARCHER, 1980, p.183). CMC discussions proved to have higher levels of spontaneous self-disclosure than FtF discussions (JOINSON, 2001). And visually anonymous participants disclosed significantly more information about themselves than non-visually anonymous participants did (JOINSON, 2001). According to SPEARS and LEA (1994, p.435), "under the protective cloak of anonymity users can express the way they truly feel and think". When the topic of research asks for information concerning attitudes etc. from the interviewee, the preference for interviews conducted by MSN messenger is obvious. The chance that the interviewee will give a richer and a socially undesirable answer is higher. [20]

The next advantage of asynchronous communication of place is saving costs and time, because the interviewer does not have to travel to the interviewee. On the other hand, when comparing the different interview techniques concerning the amount of time the interview itself actually costs, MSN messenger is less favoured. To have a good and in-depth interview by MSN messenger takes about double the time of a FtF interview (MARKHAM, 2004). Meanwhile the concentration of the interviewer and the interviewee can decrease, with negative consequences for the quality of the interview. A possible solution is to have several MSN messengers sessions with the interviewee. The advantages of several sessions are that both the interviewer and the interviewee stay concentrated, and that the interviewer has had the time to overlook the other interviews and come up with additional questions. [21]

Another advantage of asynchronous communication of place by MSN messenger is that disturbing background noises (e.g. when people are working with machinery outside the building) are not recorded. [22]

Asynchronous communication of place can be a disadvantage, because the interviewer has no view on the situation in which the interviewee is situated. Because of this the interviewer has lesser possibilities to create a good interview ambience. Due to this lessened possibility to create a standardisation of the situation, with MSN messenger an extra disadvantage is that the interviewee can stay "visible" for other employees and managers in the organisation. [23]

Beside advantages and disadvantages due to the synchronous communication of time and the asynchronous communication of place, there are also some advantages and disadvantages that find their roots in the technology used. In the first place interviewing with MSN messenger has the advantage that the outcome can directly be downloaded on the computer, so there is no transcription time. But direct recording also brings with it the danger of not taking any notes during the interview. Taking notes during the interview is important for the interviewer, even if the interview is tape recorded, to overlook if all the questions have been answered. This danger is even bigger when interviewing with MSN messenger, because writing in a chat box and taking notes at the same time is more difficult, when one has only two hands. Although not taking notes also has advantages, because "the immediacy of the exchange excites me. I will not have to break my train of thought by having to jot down notes, so the flow of dialogue should be smooth" (POLLOCK, 2004, p.4). [24]

In the second place although miscommunication is not uncommon for all the interview techniques used, which can have its roots in different operationalisations of words, or cultural differences, MSN messenger interviews can have a specific form of miscommunication, when both type at the same time. On the other hand, when one is writing, the other can read this at the bottom of the screen. This reduces the possibility that both are writing at the same time, which could lead to this miscommunication. [25]

In the third place MSN messenger is "dependent on willing and competent access to reliable technology on the part of both researcher and subject" (BAMPTON & COWTON, 2002). Especially when organising an interview with people from other cultures, for example the Arabian culture, this can be a disadvantage. The new technological possibilities and from that resulting communication media are a typically Western (and also oriental: think of Japan) product. Some cultures, like for example Arab cultures have much resistance against the setting-up of such communicative media. Because of this also the use of MSN messenger etc. in this culture is less used. Also there will be differences in cultures with regard to the media preference. One culture swears by e-mail, thus another culture gives the preference to video conferencing and another to FTF communication. [26]

In the fourth place as online interviewing involves at the most basic level the exchange of texts, this way of interviewing may be more suitable for people who type fast, and, depending on the research question, whose personalities come through in the text as clearly as they would in FtF (MARKHAM, 2004). [27]

In the fifth place terminating an interview in MSN messenger can be more difficult, because it can seem very abrupt. [28]

2.4 E-mail interviews: Asynchronous communication of time and place

As with telephone and MSN messenger interviews, one of the advantages of e-mail interviewing, due to asynchronous communication of place, is the extended access to participants, compared to FTF interviews (COOMBER, 1997). And as with using MSN messenger, a disadvantage of using e-mail is the complete lack of social cues. Therefore e-mail interviewing "provides a limited register for communication" (BAMPTON & COWTON, 2002, paragraph 25). Using emoticons, as already discussed in the former paragraph, can diminish the effects of this disadvantage. But the interviewer must always be aware that the use of emoticons is not always appropriate according to the interviewee. As each interviewee has his or her own communication style, the interviewer has to adapt the personal communication style online accordingly (KIVITS, 2005). There are also researchers that warn for an overestimation of the use of emoticons, as "e-mail messages containing emoticons did not generate different interpretations than did messages without emoticons" (WALTHER & D'ADDARIO, 2001, p.342). [29]

Another advantage of asynchronous communication of place is that disturbing background noises are not recorded. E-mail interviewing has of course the extra advantage that the interviewer can formulate the questions, and the interviewee can answer the questions at his or her own convenience without noise disturbance due to independence of place and time. [30]

Asynchronous communication of place also has the advantage that an e-mail interview can be much cheaper than e.g. a FtF interview, because there are no travelling costs. On the other hand this technique can cost a lot of time. Due to the asynchronous communication of time, the interviewee might have to wait sometimes for days or weeks before he/she answers the questions. This does not only lead to the risk that the interviewee will lose interest in the research, but also to the risk that the interviewee may forget to reply to questions (KIVITS, 2005). Sending reminders at an appropriate time to the interviewee can reduce this problem. [31]

With an e-mail interview, synchronous communication of time is impossible. Although the advantage can be that the interviewee does not hesitate in giving a socially undesirable answer but the chance of a spontaneous answer to a question is smaller, because the interviewee has more time to reflect on the question. And spontaneity can be the basis for the richness of data collected in some interviews. It depends of course on the research questions if this reflective behaviour is a disadvantage or not. On the other hand an e-mail interview has the advantage that the interviewer can take time to respond to the developing dialogue (BAMPTON & COWTON, 2002; KIVITS, 2005). [32]

According to BAMPTON and COWTON (2002, paragraph 7) asynchronous communication of time, as is the nature of an e-mail interview, also has obvious advantages as "busy interviewees do not have to identify a mutually convenient time to talk to each other". Also

"in permitting a lengthy delay between communications, an e-interview gives the interviewee time to construct a response to a particular question. It provides for example the opportunity to find information which might be required, although the researcher then does not know what resources the interviewee has drawn upon" (paragraph 8). [33]

They also remark that "it is possible to interview in a foreign language even if the interviewer is insufficiently fluent for a face-to-face interview" (paragraph 19). A translating tool that can be very useful for conducting these interviews is http://babelfish.altavista.com. Although ELRON and VIGODA (2003, p.330) warn that "(…) the lack of face-to-face social cues results in greater cultural and language barriers". [34]

As with MSN messenger, beside advantages and disadvantages due to the asynchronous communication of time and place, there are also some advantages and disadvantages due to the technology used. In the first place the outcome of an e-mail interview can directly be downloaded on the computer, so there is no transcription time. As BAMPTON and COWTON (2002, paragraph 25) state concerning e-mail interviews: "it offers significant savings in terms of time and financial resources, particularly in relation to the elimination of the need to travel or to transcribe tapes". [35]

In the second place in an e-mail interview it is not necessary to take notes, because the interviewer can always overlook the questions and answers that already have passed before sending new questions to the interviewee (MARKHAM, 2004). [36]

In the third place there is the possibility of continuing to collect data simply because the interviewer can and not because he or she should (MARKHAM, 2004). This could go beyond the research aim. [37]

In the fourth place terminating an interview in e-mail can seem very abrupt. Some e-mail interaction will simply die away. Others will be terminated with good wishes. But according to MANN and STEWART (2000, p.157) "if the interaction is deep and extended there may be difficulties of closure". [38]

3. Summary

Beside face-to-face interview and telephone interview the use of new communication forms such as e-mail and MSN messenger opens new ways for qualitative research workers for data collection. The type of interview technique chosen by the researcher can depend upon the advantages and disadvantages, which are linked to every interview technique. [39]

Using face-to-face interviews for collecting information are preferred, when:

  • social cues of the interviewee are very important information sources for the interviewer (of course dependent on the research problem);

  • the interviewer has enough budget and time for travelling, or the interviewees live near the interviewer;

  • standardisation of the interview situation is important. [40]

Using telephone interviews for collecting information are preferred, when:

  • social cues of the interviewee are less or not important information sources for the interviewer (of course dependent on the research problem);

  • the interviewer has a small budget and less time for travelling;

  • looking for access to people on sites, which have closed or limited access (such as hospitals religious communities, prisons, the military, and cults);

  • standardisation of the interview situation is not important;

  • some anonymity is requested. [41]

Using MSN messenger interviews for collecting information are preferred, when:

  • social cues of the interviewee are not important information sources for the interviewer (of course dependent on the research problem);

  • the interviewer has a small budget and less time for travelling;

  • looking for access to people on sites, which have closed or limited access (such as hospitals religious communities, prisons, the military, and cults);

  • standardisation of the interview situation is not important;

  • anonymity is requested;

  • both the interviewer and the interviewee are competent enough in type writing and using (and have access to) computers. [42]

Using e-mail interviews for collecting information is preferred, when:

  • social cues of the interviewee are not important information sources for the interviewer (of course dependent on the research problem);

  • the interviewer has a small budget and less time for travelling;

  • looking for access to people on sites, which have closed or limited access (such as hospitals religious communities, prisons, the military, and cults);

  • standardisation of the interview situation is not important;

  • anonymity is requested;

  • both the interviewer and the interviewee are both competent enough in type writing and using (and have access to) computers;

  • there is a huge time difference, because interviewer and interviewee live in different parts of the world separated by several time zones, and synchronous interviewing means for one party (interviewer or interviewee) interviewing at night;

  • It is necessary that the interviewee takes time to respond to the developing dialogue. [43]

4. Conclusions

In summary, all four interview techniques share common principles/basics and can be equally used for conducting interviews in research. Important distinctive criterion is however the nature of the information one wants to obtain, especially the importance of social cues. As already mentioned, if the interviewee is seen as a subject, and as an irreplaceable person, from whom the interviewer wants to have his or her opinion for example about the labour union, then social cues are very important. Interviewing by FtF or by telephone will be more preferred. When the interviewer interviews an expert about things or persons that have nothing to do with the expert, then social cues become less important. For such situations all four interview techniques are appropriate for use. [44]

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Carin CUYPERS (Bureau Lara, the Netherlands) for the German translation of the abstract, and Natalia Martin CRUZ (University of Valladolid, Spain) for the Spanish translation of the abstract.

References

Aoki, Kumiko (1995). Synchronous multi-user textual communication in international tele-collaboration. Electronic Journal of Communication, 5(4). Available at: http://www.cios.org/getfile\AOKI_V5N495 [Access: June 5, 2006].

Archer, Richard L. (1980). Self-disclosure. In Daniel M. Wegner & Robin R. Vallacher (Eds.), The self in social psychology (183-204). Oxford University Press: London.

Bampton, Roberta & Christopher J. Cowton (2002, May), The e-interview [27 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-line Journal], 3(2), Art. 9. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-02/2-02bamptoncowton-e.htm [Access: June 5, 2006].

Bryman, Alan (2001). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burke, Lisa A. & Miller, Monica K. (2001, May). Phone interviewing as a means of data collection: Lessons learned and practical recommendations [30 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research [On-Line Journal], 2(2), Art. 7. Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-01/2-01burkemiller-e.htm [Access: June 5, 2006].

Coomber, Ross (1997). Using the Internet for survey research. Sociological Research Online, 2(2). Available at: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/2/2.html [Access: June 5, 2006].

Elron, Efrat & Eran Vigoda (2003). Influence and political processes in virtual teams. In Cristina B Gibson & Susan G. Cohen (Eds.),Virtual teams that work: creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp.317-334). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Emans, Ben (1986). Interviewen; theorie, techniek en training. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

Gergen, Kenneth J.; Gergen, Mary M., & Barton, William H. (1973). Deviance in the dark. In Psychology Today, 7, 129-130.

Joinson, Adam N. (2001). Self-disclosure in computer-mediated communication: The role of self-awareness and visual anonymity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 177-192.

Kivits, Joëlle (2005). Online interviewing and the research relationship. In Christine Hine (Ed.), Virtual methods; Issues in social research on the Internet (pp.35-50). Oxford: Berg.

Kvale, Steinar (1983). The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 14, 171-196.

Mann, Chris & Fiona Stewart (2000). Internet communication and qualitative research. London: Sage.

Markham, Annette M. (2004). The Internet as research context. In Clive Seale, Giampietro Gobo, Jaber Gubrium & David Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp.358-374). London: Sage.

Morris, Desmond (1994). The naked ape. London: Vintage/Ebury.

Pollock, Colleen (2004). The decline of leisure reading among youth. Research Inquiry EDTE 517-3. Available at: http://web.mala.bc.ca/education/Courses/INQUIRY/colleen_pollock.rtf [Access: June 5, 2006].

Shachaf, Pnina (2005). Bridging cultural diversity. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 8(2), 46-60.

Spears, Russel, & Lea, Martin (1994). Panacea or panopticon? The hidden power in computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 21, 427-459.

Walther, Joseph B. & Kyle P. D'Addario (2001). The impacts of emoticons on message interpretation in computer-mediated communication. Social Science Computer Review, 19(3), 324-347.

Wengraf, Tom (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage.

Author

Raymond OPDENAKKER studied labour- and organisation psychology. He is an external PhD candidate at the Eindhoven University of Technology. The title of his PhD research is "The strategic momentum in virtual teams".

Contact:

Raymond Opdenakker

Eindhoven University of Technology
Faculty Technology Management
Pav.R.0.22
PO Box 513
5600 MB Eindhoven
Netherlands

E-mail: R.J.G.Opdenakker@tm.tue.nl

Citation

Opdenakker, Raymond (2006, August). Advantages and Disadvantages of Four Interview Techniques in Qualitative Research [44 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 7(4), Art. 11, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0604118.

Revised: February 3, 2014

Leave a Comment

(0 Comments)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *