[Air-L] IM interviews not interviews?

[Alex Leavitt]

It'd be helpful to know 1) what you've cited so far in defense of them, and
2) what disciplinary audience you're working with (eg., anthropology
journal reviewers would react to IM interviews different from psychology
journal reviewers).

There are a number of papers that pop up from a simple Google search –
https://www.google.com/search?q=instant+message+interviews+method – that
seem to agree that IM really isn't that different, though it'd seem
adequate to map out the area and cite a fair amount of people in a few
sentences as justification.

Alexander Leavitt
PhD Student
USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism
http://alexleavitt.com
Twitter: @alexleavitt



On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jenny Davis <jdavis4 at neo.tamu.edu> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> Long time lurker and responder, first time inquirer.
>
> I am working on an R&R for a paper in which I use both FtF and IM
> interviews. I am aware of the literature that talks about the strengths and
> weaknesses of IM as an interview mode, but one of the reviewers says that
> IM does not constitute an interview at all, but merely a question/answer
> session. I want to address this critique adequately. Is anyone familiar
> with specific articles/books that make this argument and/or push back
> against it?
>
>
> Thanks!!
>
> Jenny L. Davis
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Sociology & Anthropology
> James Madison University
>
> email: Davis5JL at jmu.edu
> Twitter: Jenny_L_Davis
> Blog: Cyborgology.org
> _______________________________________________
> The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
>
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
>