Data Collection Protocol

Once initial contact by the principal investigator was made and potential subject(s) expressed interest, an Information Sheet explaining the parameters, procedures and

expectations of the research were provided to them along with an informed Consent form.104 Informed consent is ‘a process’ which ‘includes both informing prospective participants of what their participation in the research will likely entail and obtaining their written agreement to participate’ (Cone, 2006, pp. 145-146).105 _{Subjects were informed on the Information} Sheet that no financial compensation for participation in the research study was granted and, by signature, agreed to this arrangement. While there were no direct financial benefits from individual participation, the information obtained from the study helped to influence current social science research towards a more comprehensive understanding and investigation of religious conversion. Pre- and post- correspondence was conducted with each interviewee with language approved by the University of Birmingham Ethics Committee.106

After each subject agreed to the Information Sheet and consented to participate in the research study, an emailed invitation and link was provided to access and complete the online

104 _{See Appendix for copies of the research Information Sheet and Consent form.}

105 _{FOSTER, J. D. C. A. S. L. 2010. Dissertations and Theses from Start to Finish, Psychology and Related Fields,}

Washington DC, American Psychological Association. ‘Minimal essential elements’ include description of the study and its purpose, a description of what the participant will be asked to do and how long it will take, the potential risks and benefits, and a statement regarding voluntary participation and withdrawal without penalty, reassurance of confidentiality, contact information, statement regarding compensation, availability of study results, signature of participant.

SoGoSurvey ‘University of Birmingham Religious Conversion Questionnaire.’107 _Following completion of the online questionnaire, subjects participated in a confidential interview with the principal investigator. The interviews were conducted in person if logistically possible with goals directed towards encouraging authenticity and clarity, optimizing conversion account as well as creating respectful, dynamic interpersonal dialogue. However, if personal interview was not possible due to geographical distance, the interview occurred with

videoconferencing via Skype (also allowing for the advantage of visual cues via facial expression and body language as well vocal and linguistic cues). Finally, if Skype was unavailable or at the participant’s request, phone interviews were conducted. Throughout the interview, the researcher developed a rapport with the participants, actively listening and responding with appropriate comment(s) and/or follow-up questioning.

Skype is considered a VOIP (Voice over Internet Protocol) mediated technology providing users with a way to send voice and video across the internet in a synchronous, real- time connection without the need for additional equipment, and is becoming more commonly used within academic research (Lo lacono, et al., 2016, pp. 1-2). Due to its increased

accessibility and use, researchers have considered the ethics, methodology, and efficacy of Skype interviewing in qualitative research. As an alternative or supplemental approach to interviewing, Skype allows the researcher to reap similar or improved benefits to traditional face-to-face interviews in qualitative research. Documented advantages of Skype over face- to-face interviewing include low cost, ease and flexibility of time and access through overcoming geographical/distance and logistic issues, increasing participation range and rates, and live synchronous video feed. The researcher and researched remain in a ‘neutral yet personal’ location without a sense of imposition for the researcher or the researched. Skype preserves a ‘face-to-face’ experience while preserving flexibility and private space elements (Hanna, 2012, Janghorban, 2014, Lo lacono, 2016). Bargh, et al. (2002, p. 45) have argued

the anonymity of online interaction increases rather than decreases authentic self-presentation as compared to face-to-face interviews. They conclude, an ‘important and unique [quality] of Internet (compared to face-to-face) communication is that it facilitates the expression and effective communication of one’s ‘true self’ to new acquaintances outside of one’s established social network, which leads to forming relationships with them’.

Deakin and Wakefield (2014, 607) agree with Skype’s usefulness as a supplemental or replacement tool for face-to-face interviewing. Its innovation, ease, cost- and time-

effectiveness, and versatility for research has made the use of video in social science research more commonplace, particularly in light of providing the opportunity to talk with otherwise inaccessible participants. From their experience, 'Skype should also be seriously considered as a favoured choice in interviewing methodology…the only differentiation between Skype interviewees and face-to-face interviewees was geographical proximity’. Further, they (2014) assert that the quality of responses gained through online research is comparable to responses produced by more traditional methods and encourage Skype as an equal rather than secondary choice of interviewing method. F.C. Carolyn (2001) investigated and compared face-to-face interviewing against computer-mediated interviewing and confirmed online interviewing as a viable alternative particularly when time, financial restraints or

geographical boundaries limit an investigation. Further, the use of Skype potentially increases the validity of an investigation through triangulation of the datasets through additional online data.

Limitations of Skype usage include inability to fully observe the participant’s body language, the (in)ability of participants to access and/or use technology (dropped calls and pauses, inaudible segments), potential difficulty building rapport, possible lack of trust in using video when talking about sensitive issues, and ease of last-minute drop-outs (Lo Lacono 2106, Seitz, 2016). However, Lo lacono (2016) reported no problem with making, maintaining, or reclaiming rapport, even when the Skype call was interrupted by a loss of connection. They contend that rapport depends more on research topic as well as

participant’s and interviewer’s personalities.108 _{The inability to see the full body position and} gesturing can be overcome, per Lo lacono, through ‘careful listening’ to the participant’s voice and ‘careful looking’ at their facial expressions, head and shoulders to pick up non- verbal cues. Seitz (2016) found the quality of Skype interviews to be affected by the research topic, aim, and interview questions. Questions of a personal nature may pose more difficulty due to perception of Skype as an emotional barrier, causing a loss of connection and intimacy as compared to in-person interviews. However, less sensitive issues seemed less affected by suspicions (of privacy violation) and emotional awkwardness. Within this research, Skype was effectively used as the primary mode for conducting interview due to flexibility, broadened geographical scope, virtual ‘face-to-face’ contact, and affordability.