 Welcome to this training audio slideshow from the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods at the University of Southampton. In this slideshow, Dr Susie Weller from London South Bank University discusses her NCRM-funded methodological innovation project, the potential of video telephony and qualitative longitudinal research, a participatory and interactionist approach to assessing remoteness and rapport. The way we communicate in both our professional and personal lives has changed hugely. We can now Skype our banks, receive texts from the doctor's surgery while our politicians use Twitter to communicate with voters. For social researchers, these and other digital communication technologies present new and exciting opportunities for recruiting participants, carrying out field work as well as publicising research findings. Yet face-to-face co-present interviewing generally remains the accepted practice for qualitative research. Youth researchers have been particularly active in developing new ways of working with young people, honing in on popular methods of communication. So it seems only apt to consider using these technologies with those commonly regarded as digital natives, those who've grown up with and never known life without such technologies. This audio slideshow focuses on the use of internet video calls, using applications such as Skype, FaceTime and Google Hangouts to conduct interviews with young people. My aim is to encourage you to think through some of the potentials and pitfalls. I'm not just concerned with the practicalities and technicalities, but also factors that matter to qualitative researchers such as rapport, disclosure and the research relationship. To help us think through some of these issues, I'm going to talk about some examples from my own research. Since 2002, I've been conducting a qualitative longitudinal study called YourSpace that has been following the lines of 50 young people from across Britain. I've interviewed them in their homes every two to four years. Between interviews, they've taken part in a range of postal and online activities to help maintain contact and to collect more data. In 2013, I started to look at the potential of using the internet for semi-structured interview. At the time, Skype or FaceTime were obvious choices as they both enabled synchronous communication with the researcher and participant talking and seeing one another in real time. I refer to this approach as a remote mode of interviewing. I've been looking at whether such interviews are a useful way of catching up with participants between the main interviews or whether they might be a substitute for the traditional in-depth interview. In weighing up the advantages and disadvantages, I've gathered the views of project participants on the differences between the two interview modes. I've also drawn on Irving Goffman's interactionist conceptual tools as analytic resources to look at the detail of interaction across the physical, co-present and remote interviews. So let's think about some of the practicalities and technicalities. I've mainly used Skype as video Skype to Skype calls are free, simple to use and accessible to participants with Windows, Apple and Linux systems. FaceTime and Google Hangouts are also readily available, although FaceTime is restricted to Apple devices. You can also download a variety of video chat apps, but I would recommend testing for quality. And there are many more applications currently coming to market. In my experience, it's best to offer participants a range of options and be open to their requests. You and your participants will need access to a good broadband internet connection, a webcam and a microphone, or a mobile phone or tablet with a sufficient mobile data package. Skype, FaceTime and Google Hangouts all enable you to conduct audio and or video interviews with individuals or a group of individuals located in up to nine different places, making group discussions with a disparate sample of possibility. How you record your interview will very much depend on whether you wish to capture video as well as audio material. There are many free or affordable apps that enable the recording of audio only, but you need to give careful consideration to file sizes. Personally, I think it's worth investing in software that captures both the audio and video. I've used Pamela for Skype to record Skype to Skype calls and Skype to telephone calls. Alternative packages include IAM Capture or Evia, each costs approximately £30. It's always important to have a plan B, so I've used a quality digital recorder to back up the audio material. An unreliable internet connection can result in the failure of the recording software, although in my experience this is pretty unusual. It sounds really obvious, but test all equipment and software before each interview, including the alignment of the webcam to your screen, settings for your microphone and speakers or headphones, and recording software. And get feedback from participants on the audio and video quality during the interview as they may not always readily point out any technical problems. For me, Skype generally proved to be more reliable, with FaceTime far more problematic. That said, the uptake of internet video calls, as opposed to a phone interview, was very much dependent on the participants' perceptions of the reliability of internet access where they were living, and of the general dependability of the application. Let's start thinking about some of the key methodological and ethical issues. The first question we want to ask ourselves is, do remote modes provide opportunities to conduct research with individuals or groups who would otherwise be inaccessible? One clear advantage of using these remote interviews is the potential they provide for widening participation. In our case, we wanted to reach people from around Britain, but of course it's possible to video call people in other countries, even those living in isolated or challenging environments, as well as those leading busy lives. Video calls are of course incredibly versatile. Discussions can be broken off and resumed at a time appropriate for all parties, and convenient times can be agreed to suit a group whose members might be based in different time zones. The cost of a search per respondent can be considerably reduced by using remote rather co-present interviews. Significant savings can be made on travel, subsistence and researcher time, so this may be viewed as a more sustainable approach to field work. Using remote modes made it easier for young people to continue to take part in my longitudinal project, especially as many were leading quite transient lives. Some were living between the parental home and university, working or moving into work, travelling or residing in temporary accommodation. For a small minority, this was the only means by which they could take part, and the flexibility and convenience encouraged a few who dropped out of the last round of interviews to rejoin the project. It's important not to assume that all young people are digital natives with access to or comfortable with such technologies. I gave participants a choice over their preferred communication mode and was surprised by the number opting to be interviewed by phone, primarily their mobile, rather than over the internet. One or two were actually deterred from taking part, they simply felt too shy to talk online. Some participants were rather more likely to alter our arrangements sometimes at short notice, knowing that I didn't need to travel to speak to them. Our next question is about the implications for the ways in which the researcher and participant interact in online video interviews. The rapport between the interviewer and the respondent is key both in terms of disclosure, what the respondent is prepared to tell you, and in terms of the quality of the information they provide. Building rapport without having met a participant can prove challenging, although there is evidence to suggest that much work can be done prior to the interview through email exchanges, for instance. I've established a long-term relationship with my participants, and the majority were comfortable with the shift to online interviewing. Only 42% said they would have agreed to take part online if they had not had a pre-existing research relationship with me. It won't surprise you that poor quality audio really does make the task of both the researcher and participant difficult, with much energy consumed carefully listening to responses. A strong and sustained connection is essential to the flow of conversation for a poor and for avoiding misunderstandings. I experienced disruptions to the flow of conversation in both co-present and online interviews. In the latter, these disruptions tended to evolve around technical problems. We interpret speech visually as well as audibly, so seeing the participant speak is important to our understanding. If the interviewer's audio only, or the video patchy, then the interview lacks the richness that comes from non-verbal communication. For Goffman, gestures, facial expressions and body language can be more revealing than what is actually said. They shape the oppressions researchers and participants have of one another, and how what is said is interpreted. In audio only interviews, I found myself interjecting with additional comments to try to demonstrate I was listening, that I understood, that I empathised. When it came to discussing sensitive or traumatic experiences such as homelessness, bereavement or illness, I found the remote mode inadequate, especially with audio only interviews. I felt I lacked the opportunity to demonstrate care in a meaningful manner, because participants could not see my facial expressions of empathy, sympathy or kindness. The flip side of that is that remote modes might make some feel more at ease discussing difficult issues at a distance. I've also been using some of Goffman's ideas around accessibility. For instance, do participants engage in or avoid interaction physically or verbally in distinct ways in the different modes? On the whole, and as long as participants felt comfortable with the remote mode, the majority stated that they were just as willing to disclose the detail of their lives online. Some were very experienced in using Skype in their everyday lives. But others believed they were less focused and thorough in their responses, which of course has implications for data quality. The pressure of presence was mentioned by many. Internet video calls were commonly seen as less formal or personal, but also not so daunting, partly because the encounter was solely about talk rather than a home visit that was laden with other types of expectation, such as being a good host, and because the props of the research encounter were hidden. For example, they couldn't see the digital recorder being switched on. This reflects Goffman's argument that physical co-presence can run the risk of embarrassment and clearly shows how a different interview mode can shape the resulted conversation. I too felt pressure as many of the video recordings also captured my interactions. The direct focus and framing of the webcam made me more conscious of my movements and mannerisms shaping my performance in the encounter. Another question of interest is, do we need to be in the same physical location as our research participants to interview them? I've gained much from wandering around the areas in which participants live, absorbing myself in the setting of their homes, experiencing customs and hospitality, and meeting family or friends. This valuable contextual material is missing from the interviews recorded remotely, and this has implications not only for my understanding of their context, but also rapport. Anything I might see or experience via participants' webcam is dependent on how they position the camera. That said, some were located in parts of the home I would not necessarily have seen on a home visit. I was also, and especially for the audio-only interviews, less aware of what was going on around them. In the spirit of Goffman's work, I've been interested in whether they were in a private space and able to talk, or did they feel constrained by someone else being present? Pressure to give a particular impression. Was there a hidden audience? For some, remote modes offer more privacy, enabling them to locate themselves in their bedroom, for instance, whereas a home visit would most likely have taken place in a communal space. Using Goffman's ideas, I've been exploring the props used in different interview modes. During my home visits, everyday artifacts helped Sam to narrate their stories, even though they had not necessarily been invited to share them. Mobile phones or other such devices featured as part of stories about friendship, whilst examples of schoolwork said much about self-confidence. They acted as aid memoirs, tangible signifiers of life events, or props I use to help focus the mind on the interview. Time now to think about any additional or alternative ethical considerations. My work has focused on interviewing young adults over the internet, only two of whom were under the age of 18. Ethical issues surrounding the use of such an approach with younger participants needs careful consideration, not these concerns around safeguarding children online. Gaining written consent can also prove more challenging, and it's worth considering developing approaches that complement the online interview. Perhaps a podcast explaining the purpose, process and potential outcomes could be played to participants. Consent gained through online forms and signatures, although this may need to incorporate a process for obtaining parental support. There are some important issues around confidentiality and anonymity. You're less likely to be aware of the participant's privacy and the presence of others during an internet interview. Some may also have concerns about anonymity, as a video recording captures much more of their physical identity than the audio recording common to most qualitative interviews. What participants understand of the encounter may also differ. The internet interview may feel less formal, and even if made explicit, the operation of presence of the recording equipment is not so apparent. One dangerous that some may divulge more than they would have done in a physical co-present encounter. In addition, withdrawal from the process might be considered more straightforward for participants online. So to conclude, here are my 10 top tips for you if you're considering using internet-based interviews in your research. 1. Don't consider internet telephony interviews as a quick fix or necessarily more straightforward. 2. Decide whether they are likely to be the most suitable approach to generating the data you will need to fulfil your project's aims and objectives. 3. Be prepared to be flexible and have a range of technologies available as backup. 4. Consult, work with participants over their preferred modes and platforms. Don't make assumptions about preferences or practicalities. 5. Build the groundwork of rapport prior to the interview through dialogue via email or phone. 6. Thoroughly test all equipment at software before each interview and check with participants that they have everything they need at their end. 7. Set up a backup means of recording so that you can at least capture the audio even if the recording software fails. 8. Carefully consider the additional ethical issues that might arise. 9. Think reflexively about your performance and that of your participants in your analysis. 10. Be creative in your use of internet calls across different aspects of the research process such as consultation or dissemination. Thank you for listening and I hope you find this useful for your overall. That was Dr Susie Weller from London South Bank University. She was talking about her NCRM funded methodological innovation project, the potential of video telephony in qualitative longitudinal research, a participatory and interactionist approach to assessing remoteness and rapport. You can find a list of suggested reading and useful links as well as information about the project on the YourSpace website.