[Air-L] IM interviews not interviews?

[Lee H. Humphreys]

Hi Jenny,

One of the things that I've tried to do more of in my methods sections is add more details regarding how things worked in my specific study. Perhaps adding more reflective details about how you conducted the interviews over IM would help convince the reviewer that it wasn't just question/response. For example, did you probe and follow up in the same way that you did F2F? Did you deviate from the interview guide more F2F than over IM? Did you copy and paste the questions directly from the interview guide into IM? Did you find your IM participants less likely to ask questions to you (e.g. "what do you mean by that?")?  There are a variety of details that you could write about showing that you made thoughtful and purposeful methodological choices throughout the project to ensure the credibility study. 

I find the more methodological detail and reflection I add to papers, the less likely I get critiqued on them. Of course, then there can be the issue of length, so sometimes these details just have to go in the Response to Reviewers rather than the manuscript itself.

Good luck,
Lee


Lee Humphreys, PhD
Assistant Professor
Dept of Communication
Cornell University

On Aug 18, 2013, at 1:47 PM, Jenny Davis wrote:

> Hi Alex,
> 
> I am writing for Sociology. I'm aware of several articles that defend the use of Instant Message, and several that point out the weaknesses, but haven't been able to find one that says they are categorically NOT interviews. 
> 
> Here are some citations I use in the paper:
> 
> Traverse, Max. New methods, old problems: A sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. 9:161 
> 
> Enochsson, Ann-Britt. 2011. “Who Benefits from Synchronous Online Communication?: A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Synchronous Online Interviews with Children.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences: 15-22
> 
> Markham, Annette N. 2013. Remix Culture, Remix Methods: Reframing Qualitative Inquiry for Social Media Contexts. In Denzin, N., & Giardina, M (Eds.). Global Dimensions of Qualitative Inquiry. Left Coast Press. 
> 
> Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Amy J. Griffin. 2013. “ Internet-Mediated Technologies and Mixed Methods Research: Problems and Prospects. “ Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7(1):43-61.
> 
> Beneito-Montagut, Roser. 2011. “Ethnography Goes Online: Towards a User-Centered Methodology to Research Interpersonal Communication on the Internet.” Qualitative Research 11(6):716-735
> 
> I could certainly also include some older stuff (like Hine's virtual ethnography or Miller and Slater's book), but I the more recent stuff pretty much subsumes those texts. 
> 
> Thanks!!
> 
> Jenny
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Leavitt" <alexleavitt at gmail.com>
> To: "Jenny Davis" <jdavis4 at neo.tamu.edu>
> Cc: "AoIR-L" <air-l at listserv.aoir.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:03:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Air-L] IM interviews not interviews?
> 
> 
> 
> 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/ 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/