Jennifer Heath1, Heidi Williamson2, Lisa Williams3, Diana Harcourt2. 1. Centre for Appearance Research, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. Electronic address: jennifer3.heath@uwe.ac.uk. 2. Centre for Appearance Research, Faculty of Health and Applied Sciences, University of the West of England, Bristol, BS16 1QY, UK. 3. Chelsea and Westminster Burns Service, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London SW10 9NH, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Often researchers use only one interview method within a single study. However, it is increasingly common for a variety of interview methods to be employed within a project. Providing choice to participants may facilitate recruitment, particularly when research focuses on a sensitive subject. AIM: This paper aims to explore participants' reasons for their choice of interview method in qualitative research focusing on a sensitive subject. METHODS: Qualitative data was collected from 12 participants regarding their choice of interview method (face-to-face, Skype, telephone or email) in a wider study investigating parents' experiences following their child's burn-injury. Interview data was transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse responses. RESULTS: Participants most frequently chose to take part in an interview by telephone (n = 5), followed by email (n = 4), then Skype (n = 2), and face-to-face (n = 1). Four themes emerged suggesting that participants' decisions to participate via a particular method were determined by personal convenience, their belief in their ability to be open with the researcher despite potential upset caused by the topic, their ability to get a "feel" for the researcher, and concern about giving adequate depth in responses. CONCLUSIONS: Flexibility regarding the ways in which participants can take part in qualitative research may improve participant access to research, recruitment, and response-rate. Although, the depth and quantity of data gathered using different methods can vary. It is important that researchers consider the procedures and appropriateness of using different methods of interviewing and what impact such methods might have upon themselves and their participants.
BACKGROUND: Often researchers use only one interview method within a single study. However, it is increasingly common for a variety of interview methods to be employed within a project. Providing choice to participants may facilitate recruitment, particularly when research focuses on a sensitive subject. AIM: This paper aims to explore participants' reasons for their choice of interview method in qualitative research focusing on a sensitive subject. METHODS: Qualitative data was collected from 12 participants regarding their choice of interview method (face-to-face, Skype, telephone or email) in a wider study investigating parents' experiences following their child's burn-injury. Interview data was transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse responses. RESULTS:Participants most frequently chose to take part in an interview by telephone (n = 5), followed by email (n = 4), then Skype (n = 2), and face-to-face (n = 1). Four themes emerged suggesting that participants' decisions to participate via a particular method were determined by personal convenience, their belief in their ability to be open with the researcher despite potential upset caused by the topic, their ability to get a "feel" for the researcher, and concern about giving adequate depth in responses. CONCLUSIONS: Flexibility regarding the ways in which participants can take part in qualitative research may improve participant access to research, recruitment, and response-rate. Although, the depth and quantity of data gathered using different methods can vary. It is important that researchers consider the procedures and appropriateness of using different methods of interviewing and what impact such methods might have upon themselves and their participants.
Authors: Karolina Krysinska; Sophie Curtis; Michelle Lamblin; Nina Stefanac; Kerry Gibson; Sadhbh Byrne; Pinar Thorn; Simon M Rice; Alison McRoberts; Anne Ferrey; Yael Perry; Ashleigh Lin; Sarah Hetrick; Keith Hawton; Jo Robinson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-22 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Marlene Sinclair; Julie Em McCullough; David Elliott; Anna Latos-Bielenska; Paula Braz; Clara Cavero-Carbonell; Anna Jamry-Dziurla; Ana João Santos; Lucía Páramo-Rodríguez Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Karl Andriessen; Karolina Krysinska; Debra Rickwood; Jane Pirkis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Muhammad Z Hossain; Carolyn A Chew-Graham; Emma Sowden; Tom Blakeman; Ian Wellwood; Stephanie Tierney; Christi Deaton Journal: Chronic Illn Date: 2021-01-05