12 ‘I’m Not with You, Yet

I Am . . .’
Virtual Face-to-Face Interviews

Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

Overview

This chapter is concerned with the use of Internet-based video-calling tech-

nologies, specifically Skype, in interview research. The chapter is based
on our experiences of using Skype to conduct interviews in two research
projects – one on sustainable tourism and another on volunteer involvement
in Phase I clinical trials (see Boxes 12.1 and 12.2). In this chapter, we draw on
theoretical and reflexive insights regarding our experiences of conducting
Skype interviews, in order to show that video-calling technologies allow
qualitative researchers to harness the potential of the Internet. We also use
extracts from interviews with research participants conducted via Skype to
explore their perceptions of the advantages and limitations of this method –
these are all from Mwale’s study (see Box 12.2). We outline steps in using
Skype, and the practical challenges it presents. Finally, we conclude with our
personal reflections on how we came to use Skype and what opportunities it
opened up for us.

Introduction to Skype Interviews

It is often argued that the Internet is changing the nature of social and health
research due to a range of characteristics, such as the ability to communicate
with people across the world at the touch of a button (e.g., Evans, Elford and
Wiggins, 2008). In this chapter we draw on two very different research projects
in which using Skype to conduct interviews had the potential to be of specific
benefit to our research and to the research participants. There is now a range of
alternatives to Skype offering similar technologies, such as Apple’s FaceTime.
However, given our experience, we concentrate here on Skype as an example of
video-calling technologies.

256
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 257

Box 12.1 Sustainable tourism

Paul Hanna’s (2013a) research explores how people experience and understand
sustainable and pro-environmental behaviour such as sustainable tourism.
Sustainable tourism is explicitly labelled ‘sustainable’ and ‘ethical’, but at the same
time, ‘the holiday’ is generally understood as a time and place to ‘escape’ from
everyday struggles and relax, and often involves high-polluting air transportation.
Hanna initally conducted sixteen interviews with self-defined ‘sustainable tourists’,
but on reflection, decided it was extremely problematic to travel vast distances solely
to collect data. Therefore, he decided to offer his future participants the choice of
either a face-to-face, telephone or Skype interview. In the end, no participant located
outside a five mile radius of the local area opted for a face-to-face interview, which
suggests the importance of offering participants the choice between different interview
mediums, particularly when environmental sustainability is a concern.

Box 12.2 Volunteer involvement in Phase 1 clinical trials

Shadreck Mwale’s (2015) project investigated human involvement, particularly

the experiences of healthy volunteers, in clinical trials – a testing regime which
involves a set of practices required before new drug molecules can be declared
safe and effective for marketing (Pocock, 2000). There were a number of chal-
lenges involved in conducting this research. For healthy volunteers, taking part in
clinical trials is often socially perceived as reckless and irresponsible behaviour
(Abadie, 2010), and thus participants were very conscious about sharing their
experiences face-to-face with a researcher who is a stranger. In addition, the
pharmaceutical companies involved were concerned that their volunteers may be
lured by their competitors away from their units or that information about their
clinical trial units given to the media, which may portray them negatively.
Conducting interviews via Skype enabled Mwale to manage these concerns
about confidentiality and access.

Skype was founded in 2003 and is free software that offers both audio and
visual communication via an Internet connection. The software is available on
computers (both Windows and Apple Mac), through Smart TVs, via video
game consoles (such as PlayStation 3) and as an app on smartphones and
tablets. We suggest that researchers use the software through a PC to utilise
the recording software available. The participant, however, can use it through
any form of technology that supports it. The basic download of Skype is free
and simple to use, requiring only that a user account is set up. To use Skype you
have to open an account and create a profile; this involves choosing a Skype

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 258 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

username, selecting an image for your profile (if desired) and creating a secure
password. After this, your profile is publicly available for people to use.
Communication is then possible from individual to individual via their user-
name contact details. It also has a platform for sending messages, which users
can access at any time they log in.
As the software runs through the Internet, and does not ‘make calls’ over
a standard phone-line, the locality of those wishing to communicate by calling
or sending instant messages from Skype to Skype is irrelevant in terms of the
potential costs of calls. However, the technology does include services for
calling mobile phones and landlines, both local and international, at a fee
(though generally greatly reduced compared to standard call charges). To
make a Skype-to-Skype call, you need to be connected with the other user.
After sending ‘contact’ requests to other Skype users, a connection is created
when they accept your request – or you accept theirs.
To the best of our knowledge, the technology had not been used for research
purposes until Hanna’s 2008–2011 project and subsequent 2012 publication
(Hanna, 2012). The technology appears now to be readily used in a vast range
of research areas, with a number of papers reporting the findings of Skype
interview research published in the last few years. For example, British geo-
graphers Deakin and Wakefield (2014) used Skype in their PhD research
projects exploring ‘academic networking for learning and teaching’ and ‘stu-
dent work placement mobility in Europe’, both of which had a focus on UK-
and non-UK-based participants. Gkartzios (2013), a researcher in planning and
development, used Skype to conduct in-depth interviews with participants in
Greece to explore the ways in which the recent economic crisis has impacted
the lives of individuals, and resulted in people moving from urban lifestyles to
rural lifestyles, and returning to a greater reliance on the extended family unit.
In his research on childcare and emotions, Australian educational researcher
Yarrow (2013) used ‘web-based video-calling services’ to conduct semi-
structured interviews with childcare staff (other examples include: Green and
Young, 2015; Hill and Hemmings, 2015; van Riemsdijk, 2014).

What Do Skype Interviews Offer the Qualitative Researcher?

As a tool, Skype does not offer a radical alternative to conventional means for
collecting interview data. Rather, what it offers is an alternative means for
collecting data that uses the Internet to overcome many of the inherent limita-
tions and challenges of face-to-face data collection, such as: difficulties of
arranging a time and place to meet; participants not feeling comfortable sharing

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 259

their experiences in person; and the challenges of noise and disruptions if

interviewing in public spaces (Bryman, 2004). Therefore software such as
Skype further advances the Internet as the medium that provides the most
feasible alternative to face-to-face interviews, if issues such as distance, sensi-
tivity/anonymity, time and funding resources are of concern.
We see five key benefits of using Skype in qualitative interview research:
(1) Ease and flexibility of scheduling. Skype interviews are much easier to
arrange than face-to-face interviews, as the researcher and the participant
do not have to travel to meet for the interview. Rather, the interview is
conducted at the participant’s convenience and in some cases the partici-
pant can be at home. Skype offers practical benefits in relation to schedul-
ing interviews, and flexibility to shift times at the last minute with minimal
disruption. This is important when people live increasingly busy lives and
may not have time to meet face-to-face (Holt, 2010). In addition, Skype
overcomes time zone differences. For instance, four interviews for the
volunteer involvement in clinical trials study were with participants in
Brazil, Sweden, India and the US. The participants considered the benefits
of Skype in relation to time and space:
‘I think I prefer Skype to face-to-face meetings, although I would probably choose
a face-to-face meeting with an interlocutor if it was easy to arrange . . .’
(Participant 2).

Whilst Participant 2 expressed some ambivalence over a preference for

face-to-face or Skype, other participants noted the added value of Skype,
even if they could physically meet the researcher, as it helped to overcome
the inconvenience of travel, especially in big cities:
‘[I]t is a quick way to talk to people who may be in a distant location. In London it
seems to take so long to get anywhere for meetings; thus saving time and money
involved in travel to a meeting spot is a significant plus side’ (Participant 4).
‘I also like . . . the fact that I did not travel or spend any more than I usually do for
using the Internet you know but still did the interview’ (Participant 9).

In using Skype, the participants and researchers not only saved money, but
also the time spent travelling to meet each other, enabling the participants
to contribute to research with minimal costs on their part.
(2) Virtual and visual interaction. Software such as Skype provides not only
synchronous (real-time) interaction between the researcher and participants,
but also visual interaction. In their account of using online instant messaging
to conduct interviews, Evans et al. (2008) noted that there are often problems

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 260 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

building rapport and trust (typically deemed crucial for good interviewing)
between interviewee and interviewer, due to the lack of personal contact and/
or visual cues (but see Chapter 11). However, with a live video and audio
feed, Skype largely overcomes this concern. Video calling gives access to
cues (such as body language) that are deemed important in face-to-face
interviews and thought to help facilitate and communicate feelings that
would otherwise not be articulated (Knapp, Hall and Horgan, 2013).
(3) Ease of data capture. Researchers can easily record the audio and (if
desired) video stream of the interview, through easy-to-use software down-
loaded onto their workstation (e.g., Audacity). Whilst this may appear
a relatively minor benefit, it does ease the apprehension we have felt in
previous research when using an audio-recording device to record face-to-
face interviews and the potential for ‘disaster’ resulting from flat batteries
or corrupted files.
(4) ‘Public’ places and ‘private’ spaces. Some participants may find the idea of
inviting a researcher into their house intimidating or uncomfortable. They
may also not wish to have a researcher interview them at their place of work,
and may not have the time to travel to the researcher’s office. Skype offers
participants a space that is both (more or less) private and familiar and
accessible to the researcher, who nonetheless remains removed from that
space. Thus Skype provides a space for interviews that in some sense is both
‘public’ and ‘private’ and can potentially lessen feelings of intimidation for
participants. Qualitative interviews – even those that aim to ‘give voice’ to
participants and focus on how they make sense of their experiences – can be
understood as retaining some degree of the hierarchies and unequal power
relations associated with quantitative research, in which research is done on
people, rather than with, or for, them. For example, even in qualitative
interviews, the researcher determines the focus of the research and the
questions that guide the interview. Having an ‘expert’ researcher enter
your home, or being required to attend the possibly unfamiliar and intimidat-
ing environment of a university campus for the purposes of an interview, can
serve to maintain such unequal power relationships, or at the very least leave
the participant on the back foot (Elwood and Martin, 2000). Skype has the
potential to sidestep such concerns and offer a more empowered experience
for the interview participant, something argued to be a central goal of
qualitative research (Rappaport and Stewart, 1997).
(5) Greater control for participants. In Hanna’s sustainable tourism study,
participants were given the choice of a face-to-face, telephone or Skype
interview. This choice was deemed important because of the research
topic – sustainable tourism. Conflict could have arisen between the

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 261

participants’ ecological principles and Hanna travelling vast distances to

conduct the interview. Offering the participant more say in the medium
through which the interview was conducted may well have resulted in
participants feeling more comfortable to respond to questions, creating
a more open interview, and potentially the generation of more nuanced
and detailed data.
In the volunteer involvement in clinical trials study, Mwale found that
the use of Skype gave the participants liberty to choose the interview
medium (video or just voice call; the latter enhanced the anonymity of
the interview). They also had the option to end the interview at any time
simply by clicking a mouse and, presumably, without feeling the same
level of pressure and obligation that result from sitting opposite the
researcher. As one participant commented:

‘I like the fact that you . . . keep a certain level of privacy, both in terms of profile
information and of the contents of a conversation, as far as I know, and whether to
use the video or not, and you can end a conservation if you want anytime by clicking
a button . . .’ (Participant 1).

It is important to note, however, that Skype is not without its limitations.

Relying (solely) on Skype to conduct your interviews means that only partici-
pants who can afford or access the necessary equipment will be included in the
research – a concern that is raised around Internet research more generally
(Evans et al., 2008; see Chapters 10, 11 and 13). Other potential problems with
Skype interviews are discussed later.

What Research Questions Suit Skype Interviews?

As interviewing via Skype predominately draws on the approach and principles

of qualitative interviewing more generally, the research questions appropriate
for Skype interviews are largely similar to those guiding face-to-face interview
research; there are no limitations inherent in the technology. The two example
studies discussed in this chapter (see Boxes 12.1 and 12.2) use Skype as
a method of data collection to address questions that focus on individuals’
understandings, negotiations, experiences and constructions of social phenom-
ena (related to sustainable behaviours and clinical trials). Hanna has continued
to use Skype as a method of data collection on two additional projects, the first
addressing the question ‘How does the social economy function throughout the
European Union?’ and the second exploring ‘In what ways are community
organisations providing alternatives to statutory mental health services?’

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 262 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

As the software offers an interactive mode for data collection that is situated
both in a ‘public place’ and ‘private space’, it is particularly suited for addres-
sing sensitive research questions, which may be difficult or awkward to discuss
in person. For example, Schuetz’s (2013) doctoral research exploring the
representations and experiences of HIV-positive women’s journey into mother-
hood, or Wagemakers, Van Zoonen and Turner’s (2014) study exploring the
controversy surrounding two types of hearing implants, both allowed partici-
pants a degree of distance from the researcher and the intimacy of a face-to-face
interview.

Design, Sampling and Ethical Issues

Sampling and ethics are little different in face-to-face and Skype interview
research, and you will need to address all of the relevant ethical issues and
design decisions associated with face-to-face interviews. For example, in
terms of sample size in interview research, there is always the pragmatic
question of the size and scope of your project (for students, this is usually
tagged to level at which you are working – such as undergraduate, MSc,
professional doctorate or PhD), as well as the need to consider the method of
analysis you will be using. If you wanted to use thematic analysis (e.g., Braun
and Clarke, 2006), or a similar approach that focuses on broad patterns in the
data, we would typically recommend a sample of between five and ten inter-
views for undergraduate research. However, if you were interested in using
a more ideographically-oriented approach like interpretative phenomenolo-
gical analysis (e.g., Smith and Osborn, 2008), you may wish to interview just
a few individuals in order to fully engage with their ‘life world’ (e.g., Eatough
and Smith, 2006).

Recruitment
Possibly the biggest benefit to using Skype to conduct interviews is that the
researcher is no longer geographically restricted, and thus the sampling frame
can be very broad (see Deakin and Wakefield, 2014). Furthermore, if the
researcher is using Skype to collect data, then using the Internet to recruit
participants – advertising the research via discussion forums, social media and
Internet pages – is entirely appropriate. For Hanna’s research on ecological
tourism, such a strategy proved fruitful in providing a range of diverse and
willing participants from across the UK and even further afield. Hanna
contacted a number of Internet-based companies, forums, social media

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 263

Box 12.3 Summary of guidelines on how to formulate interview questions

(1) Have a clear research question you wish to explore in your research project –
this is important for directing the focus of the study and the questions to be asked
in the interview.
(2) Have a set of clear aims or objectives that help you to focus the study further and
will be the basis for formulating interview questions.
(3) Start by looking at your first aim and then make a list of two or three issues that
pertain to the aim.
(4) Draft one or more questions that would seek to explore (directly or indirectly)
each of the issues.
(5) Repeat the procedure for your other aims, until you have a list of questions that
will allow you to address all of your aims.
(6) Arrange these in the order that you want to ask them, keeping in mind the
importance of building up to more sensitive and/or threatening questions
(Leech, 2002; Charmaz, 2014).
(7) Think of how these questions could be interlinked, and consider possible follow-up
(probe) questions you may need to explore or clarify some issues further.
(8) Add one or two opening and closing questions.
(9) Finally, pilot your questions to test their suitability; you can also ask your pilot
participants what they thought about the questions. Afterwards adjust your inter-
view questions, and the schedule order, accordingly.

groups and email lists to seek help in advertising the research project. Not
only did these methods of recruitment yield ample participants, but they were
also free (a very important consideration for student researchers with little or
no research budget) and did not use paper (which also means zero costs, and
keeps your eco conscience clear!).

Design
As with any interview research, having well thought-out research questions and
a well-designed interview schedule is vital. In Box 12.3, we outline a series of
steps for designing good interview schedules.
Boxes 12.4 and 12.5 provide examples of interview schedules from our
research. As you can see, each is structured very differently: Mwale (2015)
opted for a list of questions that flowed in a logical order (Box 12.4); Hanna
(2013) adopted a more ‘narrative’ approach to interviewing (Hollway and
Jefferson, 2000), with questions organised around a beginning, middle
and end Box 12.5. There are many ways to design an interview schedule (e.g.,
see the approaches discussed in Charmaz, 2014; Willig, 2013); the approach

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 264 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

Box 12.4 Example interview schedule from the ‘volunteer involvement in Phase 1
clinical trials’ study

(1) Will you tell me a bit about yourself?

(2) How did you hear about the clinical trials?
(3) How did you get involved?
(4) What do you think about the recruitment process?
(5) At what stage did you decide to take part in the trial?
(6) Is this your first time as a volunteer or have you taken part in other trials before?
• If so, how long have you been doing this?
(7) What motivated you to take part in this/these trial/s?
(8) How important is the monetary reward on offer to you?
(9) Do you think you have all the information necessary to help you make
a decision?
(10) What is your view about the risks involved in trials?
(11) Have you ever experienced any adverse effects from trial drugs in your time as
a volunteer?
• If so, how did you deal with that?
(12) Do you think you have adequate information about possible effects and what
support you would have in case of severe effects?
(13) Do you know of any channels of communication/support available for you if
you may have an issue with during or after the clinical trial?
(14) How do you ensure your voice is heard on issues of clinical trials if you have
any concerns?
(15) What is your occupation? Current or previous.
(16) What would you describe your ethnicity as?
(17) What would you describe your social class to be?
(18) Is there something I have not asked that you think I should know to better
understand your experience as a healthy volunteer?
(19) Do you have any questions for me?

you use should fit well with your style as an interviewer and your research
question and aims.
You might be thinking that these examples seem extremely long for ‘semi-
structured’ interviews, but this is not the case. It is a good practice to have all
potential questions mapped out, so that you can explore the issues you want to
cover to the desired depth. An interview schedule is not rigidly followed; rather, it
is more of a guide to the key elements that you want or need to cover. A participant
may answer ‘question 3’, for instance, while responding to ‘question 1’, and you
need to judge if you should still directly ask ‘question 3’ – perhaps in

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 265

Box 12.5 Example interview schedule from the ‘sustainable tourism’ study

Section 1 – The Holiday

(1) Can you describe how you booked your holiday – were there any difficulties?
(2) What made you book this holiday over a high street or package holiday?
(3) Did you see any conflicts with flying to the destination/what made you decide
not to fly?
(4) Can you describe what you expected your holiday to be like?
• What did you expect to be doing day to day?
• Did you expect it to be different from holidays in the past?
• What was appealing about this specific holiday over others?
• What did you find appealing about the tour operator?
(5) What were the highlights of your holiday?
• Were there any experiences you didn’t like?
• Shall we look at some of the photographs?
• Did you do any excursions or day trips?
(6) Overall do you feel that the holiday lived up to your expectations?
(7) Was this holiday different from holidays you have been on in the past?
(8) Do you feel this holiday has provided you with an insight and understanding of
the local culture and environment?
(9) Do you feel that this holiday was different from a mainstream/high-street
holiday?
(10) Do you think more people should be encouraged to go on this type of holiday?
• Should there be more of these holidays available?
Section 2 – Tourism and Ethics (explain that there are a range of labels)
(1) How would you define your particular holiday?
(2) How do you feel that differs from –
• Sustainable tourism
• Ethical tourism
• Eco tourism
• Green Tourism
• Responsible Tourism
(3) Are there any other labels which you feel are significant in this area?
(4) Do you have any preference over the labels used?
(5) What made you interested in this type of tourism?

Section 3 – Everyday Ethics

(1) In your general day-to-day life, do you feel you are conscious about:
• Environmental issues?
• Cultural issues?
• Issues around sustainability?

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 266 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

(2) Are:
• Environmental issues
• Cultural issues
• Issues around sustainability
important to you in your general life?
(3) Would you consider yourself as a responsible or ethical consumer in general?
(4) Do you feel your holiday has changed the way you view the environment or
culture?
• Do you feel it has changed any day-to-day practices? For example, made you
recycle more?

Concluding Remarks
(1) Is there anything you would like to add that hasn’t been discussed?
(2) Would you go on this type of holiday again?

a different way – or simply move on. The skills for making such judgements
develop with practice.

Steps to Using Skype for Interviews

(1) Develop a research question and aims. Think of something that really
interests you that is not already well addressed in existing research, and
note what this is. From this area of interest, try to formulate a question
that you are specifically interested in and write this down. Think about
how you might break this question up into a set of three to four aims,
and make a note of these.
(2) Identify your participant group. With your research question and aims in
mind, decide which people you would select to interview in order to
address your question and aims.
(3) Design an interview schedule. Reflecting on your research question, aims,
and sample, write roughly ten questions, the responses to which would
generate appropriate data to address your research question and aims (see
Boxes 12.3, 12.4 and 12.5 for further guidance).
(4a) Create a Skype account. If you don’t already have a Skype account, log
on to your computer and create one. To do this you will need to visit
www.skype.com and download Skype onto your computer. Create a new
Skype account or login via your email or even your Facebook account.
(4b) Familiarise yourself with Skype. If you aren’t familiar with Skype, take
the Skype tour to explore its functions and get yourself familiar with

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 267

the software. Trust us, there is nothing worse that arranging to inter-
view someone using a particular form of technology and then disco-
vering that you don’t actually know how to make a call and thus have to
postpone the interview whilst you figure it out (not that this has
happened to either of us, of course . . .).
(5) Prepare for data capture. Now it is time to download recording software.
We have both used Audacity, but there is a range of similar software (such
as TotalRecorder or CamStudio) to enable you to record the audio and/or
video input to your computer – have a look and download whichever
seems the most user-friendly to use, and/or is widely used in your
institution. Be sure to also familiarise yourself with this software, as
you do not want to do the interview and find out you have not recorded it!
(6) Practice makes perfect. You should now be ready to go with your research
question, aims, interview schedule and knowledge of the software. Time
to try out your interview skills! Recruit a friend you can ‘interview’ via
Skype, and then reflect on your use, and the functionality, of the software
you have used, and make any necessary tweaks (e.g., to your interview
schedule, Skype setup etc.) before conducting a proper interview.

What Can Go Wrong with Skype Interviews?

Skype can only be an effective research tool if there is good Internet connection.
Poor connections can be frustrating for researchers and participants alike; sudden
interruptions to conversation can impact on rapport and ultimately on the quality
of data collected. The quality of Internet connections is fundamental, particularly
when conducting interviews with difficult-to-reach groups, such as in the volun-
teer involvement in clinical trials study – each opportunity to speak needs to be
taken full advantage of, with minimal disruptions. In one interview for the
sustainable tourism project, a faulty webcam created a situation in which
Hanna could be seen by the participant, but the participant could not be seen
by him. The quality of the connection determines not only the quality of the
picture but of the voice as well, thus potentially resulting in a missed opportunity
if the quality of the interview experience and subsequent data are hindered.
Furthermore, when there are poor-quality connections, interviews may take
longer than planned. For instance, in one interview for the volunteer involvement
in clinical trials study, the connection was so poor that an interview that could
have taken forty-five minutes took almost an hour and half. Consequently, when
organising Skype interviews, it is important to leave plenty of time for each

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 268 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

interview, and instruct the participant to do the same, in anticipation of such

disruptions.
In another interview in that study, the conversation could not flow due to the
‘glitchy’ nature of the Internet connection and both the participant and
researcher felt uneasy with the disjointed flow of conversation throughout –
not to mention the extra time the participant needed to give to the research
process. This meant that in some cases the quality of the data was compro-
mised, as the exchange between the participant and the research was not of the
desired depth and rapport was often hard to establish and/or maintain. Such
potential issues should be discussed with the participant prior to the interview,
to make the participant aware that should such a situation arise, a further
interview may be needed.
In another of Hanna’s interviews for the sustainable tourism study, the
connection was so poor that it was difficult to observe basic telephone etiquette,
such as waiting for the other person to speak or respond before asking another
question. Furthermore, Hanna could not hear or see the participant clearly and
often the connection would cut-out on the participant’s side. This resulted in
Paul not only missing out on vital data, but also having to imagine what the
participant had said in order to try and maintain some flow to the conversation
(an essential element to a good interview, see Flick, 2009), rather than con-
tinually asking the participant to repeat what they had just said. In addition,
there were occasions where Hanna thought the participant had finished talking
and would start asking a follow-up question, when in fact the participant was
still answering the preceding question. Such exchanges not only felt unprofes-
sional, they also resulted in the researcher appearing rushed and impatient to
the participant. Mwale’s experience was that on occasions when connection
was disrupted, he felt anxious, as he did not want to lose the participants from
the study. It was also awkward to restart conversations after such breaks, as
sometimes both he and the participant would have lost their train of thought.
Given such circumstances, discussing the issue of connection and potential for
disruption before the interview begins can be useful in managing this problem.
This can also be a good way to begin the interaction and establish rapport with
the participant. Issues around connection quality were also of concern to the
participants for instance:
‘I think the only things that might have been improved by a face-to-face meeting would
have been the clarity of sound and the fact that I was perhaps a little conscious of my
housemates overhearing the discussion over Skype’ (Participant 5).

This quotation also highlights that the researcher may not always be aware of
the environment in which the participant is located and how this might affect

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 269

the responses they are able and willing to make. Having other people in the
vicinity could result in constrained responses, and/or distractions to the parti-
cipant that may not be easily discernible to the interviewer. Thus setting the
ground rules to the interview in advance, and being aware of the potential issues
of having people in the vicinity of the interview, are key strategies for the
researcher to manage such issues (Chapter 11 offers an example of ground rules
for online interviewing).

What Methods of Analysis Suit Skype Interview Data?

Skype and other VoIP (voice-over-Internet protocol) software (such as

FaceTime) generate data that can be audio and visual and invite a range of
analytic methods and approaches. In the project on sustainable tourism, Hanna
transcribed the interview data and ‘tried out’ a range of different theoretical and
analytical methods, including thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), inter-
pretative phenomenological analysis (Smith and Osborn, 2008) and discursive
psychology (Edwards and Potter, 1992). Whilst all of these approaches provided
some interesting findings on the research area, he felt that there was still some-
thing missing in terms of really getting to the bottom of the specific issues he was
interested in. In the end, he drew on a nuanced method of Foucauldian discourse
analysis (see Hanna, 2013b) to reflect the primary focus on ‘ethics’ in the project.
Whilst this is not the ‘textbook’ way of analysing data for a research project (and
certainly is not something we would recommend for undergraduate or Master’s
dissertations), it does demonstrate that data obtained via Skype does not raise any
specific issues with regard to the type of analysis one can conduct on the data.
In his project exploring volunteer involvement in clinical trials study, Mwale
adopted a thematic analysis, approach. This method was useful because unlike
other forms of analysis, such as discourse analysis, it is not inherently attached to
any theoretical framework (Braun and Clarke, 2006).
Whilst neither of us have encountered any specific issues in adopting
a method of analysis suitable for Skype interview data, we suggest that for
some of the more fine-grained methods of analysis, that rely on the nuances of
interaction (e.g., some forms of discourse analysis), a more cautious approach
may be needed. For example, within discursive psychology, the emphasis on
a ‘Jefferson’ style method of transcription (Potter and Hepburn, 2005) to
capture subtleties in how participants’ say things (such as emphasis, rising
and falling intonations, and laughter interpolated into words), as well as what
they say, may prove difficult if the Internet connection is problematic and the
recording is not of a high-quality. Moreover, with discursive psychologists

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 270 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

increasingly turning to ‘naturally occurring’ talk and conversation analysis

(e.g., Friesen, 2009; Wiggins and Potter, 2008), questions have been raised
about the validity of all forms of researcher-generated interview data (see
Chapter 8 for a discussion of the merits of ‘naturalistic’ data).

Conclusion

Throughout this chapter, we have highlighted what Internet-based video-calling

technologies, and specifically Skype, can offer the budding social or health
researcher as a medium through which to collect qualitative interview data.
Following the initial description of Skype, we have presented a reflective account
of the key benefits of conducting Skype interviews in social and health research.
In addition, we have highlighted some of the practicalities of using Skype for
interviews, and some of the design decisions you will need to make (e.g., what
research questions suit Skype interviews; what methods of analysis are suitable
for analysing Skype interview data). Drawing on our own experiences of using
this technology, we have also highlighted some of the limitations of Skype as
a research resource (e.g., poor Internet connections), and how best to manage
these. Overall though, we hope that, on balance, we have demonstrated that
Skype interviews offer a range of very exciting research possibilities, of which
we have only just scratched the surface (see Box 12.6).

Have a Go . . .

(1) If you don’t have one already, set up a Skype account, and invite a friend
willing to participate in a practice interview to do the same.
(2) Develop a research question on a topic appropriate to a Skype interview,
and design a brief interview schedule.
(3) Call your friend-participant, and conduct your interview with them
(remembering to start up your recording software).
(4) Listen back over the interview; reflect on the process of conducting
a Skype interview in terms of how you felt and how the participant might
have felt. Were there any uncomfortable silences? Did you experience any
technological glitches?
(5) Ask your friend-participant to give you feedback about their experience.
(6) Reflect on whether you would change the schedule, and how might you
conduct a Skype interview differently in the future.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 271

Box 12.6 Personal reflections on using Skype interviews

Paul: I originally came to use Skype for non-academic purposes due to the emigration
of family members to Australia. During my PhD (Hanna, 2011), however, the useful-
ness of having something similar to a face-to-face encounter via the Internet seemed to
me like a logical use of technology to overcome some of the recruitment and spatial
issues I was encountering at the time. Since first using the technology in my PhD, I have
used it on a range of additional projects and do genuinely feel that it offers something to
researchers that cannot be understated. It has offered me the chance to interview people
from all over the world without having to excessively increase my carbon footprint. It
has also enabled me to take a flexible approach to scheduling interviews, whereby last-
minute changes by participants no longer create undue stress, either to the participants
or to me. I have also found the ability to record the audio and visual elements of the
interviews as a real blessing and no longer have to hold my breath as I plug the
dictaphone into the computer, praying that the file: (a) is actually on the device;
(b) transfers to my computer without corrupting; and (c) is in fact audible and not
clouded out by fuzz or the romantic conversation of the couple sitting next to me in the
café. That said, I would be lying if I said the technology is an exact replacement for face-
to-face encounters. The interactions can lack that intersubjective ‘feel’ you get when
you are actually in the same room as someone else. However, there are also times when
in fact it is precisely that ‘feel’ that both the participant and, at times, the researcher
would like to avoid, due to the sensitive nature of the research project. In sum then, the
technology has been of great benefit to me, and I can see a very exciting future for Skype
and the ever-increasing array of possibilities the Internet opens up.
Shadreck: I started using Skype to keep in touch with my family and friends living in
Zambia. When designing my research for my PhD (Mwale, 2015 ), I initially did not
consider using Skype until I was presented with a situation where my participants were
not within easy reach. In fact, they suggested using Skype when I contacted them to
arrange an interview. Because of the sensitive nature of the study and the dispersed
geographical locations of potential participants, using Skype meant that I was able to
give these participants the opportunity to share their experiences, and I gathered
valuable data that I would have otherwise missed if I had insisted on using face-to-
face interview. In addition, Skype bridged the time factor that could have limited some
participants’ involvement in the research, and I was able to conduct the interviews at a
time that was convenient for them. The ability to enhance further the anonymity of
participants, by allowing them to choose to either use the audio and video stream or just
the audio stream, was also a significant benefit to interviewing via Skype. However,
using Skype has not been without its frustrations – sometimes a poor network connec-
tion meant that I was constantly having disrupted conversations that made it hard to
retain the thread of both my thoughts and the participants’ account. Sometimes it was
frustrating to find myself talking over my participant, being unable to read their facial
expressions or knowing when to interject without coming across as unprofessional.
Furthermore, the information conveyed through body language is not always easily
visible via Skype. Despite these limitations, it was a very useful tool that I would use
again if I needed to interview participants at a distance.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 272 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

Further Resources: Online

Skype: www.skype.com/en/

Further Resources: Readings

For a useful reflection from two PhD researchers on the strengths and weaknesses of
using Skype in their research, see Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype
interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5),
603–616.
For a short article that outlines the benefits of Skype for qualitative interviews in relation
to face-to-face and telephone interviews, see Hanna, P. (2012). Using Internet
technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative
Research, 12(2), 239–242.
To read about the results of the sustainable tourism study, see chapter 5: Identifying what
and why: Reasons for engaging with sustainable tourism, in: Hanna, P. (2013a).
Being sustainable in unsustainable environments. Charleston, NC: Amazon.
For more general advice on qualitative interviewing, see chapter 2: Crafting and
conducting intensive interviews, in: Charmaz, K. (2014) Constructing grounded
theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd edn). London: Sage
Publications.

References

Abadie, R. (2010). The professional guinea pig: Big pharma and the risky world of
human subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative
Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bryman, A. (2004). Social research methods (2nd edn). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD
researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616.
Eatough, V. and Smith, J. (2006). ‘I was like a wild wild person’: Understanding feelings
of anger using interpretative phenomenological analysis. British Journal of
Psychology, 97(4), 483–498.
Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Elwood, S. and Martin, D. (2000). ‘Placing’ interviews: Location and scales of power in
qualitative research. The Professional Geographer, 52(4), 649–657.
Evans, A., Elford, J. and Wiggins, D. (2008). Using the Internet for qualitative research.
In C. Willig and W. Stainton Rogers (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research in psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Flick, U. (2009). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 Virtual Face-to-Face Interviewing 273

Friesen, N. (2009). Discursive psychology and educational technology: Beyond the

cognitive revolution. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(2), 130–144.
Gkartzios, M. (2013). ‘Leaving Athens’: Narratives of counterurbanisation in times of
crisis. Journal of Rural Studies, 32, 158–167.
Green, A. R. and Young, R. A. (2015). The lived experience of visual creative expression
for young adult cancer survivors. European Journal of Cancer Care, 24(5), 695–706.
Hanna, P. (2011). Consuming sustainable tourism: Ethics, identity, practice (Unpublished
PhD thesis). Brighton, UK: University of Brighton.
(2012). Using Internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium:
A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242.
(2013a). Being sustainable in unsustainable environments. Charleston, NC: Amazon.
(2013b). Foucauldian discourse analysis in psychology: Reflecting on a hybrid read-
ing of Foucault when researching ‘ethical subjects’. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 11(2), 142–159.
Hill, D. M. and Hemmings, B. (2015). A phenomenological exploration of coping
responses associated with choking in sport. Qualitative Research in Sport,
Exercise and Health, 7(4), 521–538.
Hollway, W. and Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free
association, narrative and the interview method. London: Sage Publications.
Holt, A. (2010). Using telephones for narrative interviewing: A research note. Qualitative
Research, 10(1), 113–121.
Knapp, M., Hall, J. and Horgan, T. (2013). Nonverbal communication in human inter-
action (8th edn). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Leech, B. (2002). Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. Political
Science & Politics, 35(4), 665–668.
Mwale, S. (2015). Risk, rewards and regulation: Exploring regulatory and ethical
dimensions of human research participation in phase I (first-in-human) clinical
trials in the United Kingdom (Unpublished PhD thesis). Brighton, UK: University
of Sussex. Retrieved from: http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/55221/
Pocock, J. (2000). Clinical trials: A practical approach. Chichester, UK: Wiley and Sons.
Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and
possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281–307.
Rappaport, J. and Stewart, E. (1997). A critical look at critical psychology: Elaborating
the questions. In D. Fox and I. Prilleltensky (eds.), Critical psychology:
An introduction (pp. 301–317). London: Sage Publications.
van Riemsdijk, M. (2014). International migration and local emplacement: Everyday
place-making practices of skilled migrants in Oslo, Norway. Environment and
Planning A, 46(4), 963–979.
Schuetz, S. (2013). Representations and experiences of HIV-positive women on the
journey to motherhood in Canada (Unpublished PhD thesis). Alberta, Canada:
University of Calgary.
Smith, J. and Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J. Smith
(ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd edn).
London: Sage Publications.
Wagemakers, S., Van Zoonen, L. and Turner, G. (2014). Giving meaning to RFID and
cochlear implants. IEEE, Technology and Society Magazine, 33(2), 73–80.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013
 274 Paul Hanna and Shadreck Mwale

Wiggins, S. and Potter, J. (2008). Discursive psychology. In C. Willig and W. Stainton

Rogers (eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology
(pp. 73–90). London: Sage Publications.
Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd edn). Berkshire,
UK: Open University Press.
Yarrow, A. (2013). ‘I’m strong within myself’: Gender, class and emotional capital in
childcare. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 36(5), 651–668.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Waikato Library, on 06 Jan 2021 at 23:25:31, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107295094.013