The telephone interviews process

Undertaking telephone interviews involved a limited amount of resources and minimal time was spent in the organising of the interview schedule through the use of email. The telephone recording equipment used was readily available at the university at no cost and was easy to set up and use. As face-to-face interviews had also been considered at the early stages of this element of the research, Table 3.5 below highlights the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face-interviews versus telephone interviews.

Advantages Disadvantages

Face-to-face interviews

Opportunity to meet the interviewees;

Travel expenses; Time spent travelling;

Limited or no influence on the environment where the interview takes place

Telephone interviews

Easy to arrange; Simple to record electronically;

No time spent travelling; Low cost

Unable to see and act upon non-verbal signs;

Table 3.5: Advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews

It was decided that the telephone interviews should be recorded for transcribing later. The benefit of this would be that it would mean less reliance on memory and notes, and the recording and transcribing would be a more accurate record of the interview. The potential negative outcome of recording the interview would be if the recording equipment failed or the recording was deleted prematurely. This was prevented from happening by ensuring time was spent practising using the equipment in advance of any of the interviews taking place and that the equipment was in good working order before the start of each interview.

A timetable was drafted for the interview process to ensure there would be enough time to complete the exercise including the transcribing. The first draft is shown at Table 3.6.

Date Action

11 November ‘10 Supervisory meeting – finalise questions

By 19 November ‘10 Have all telephone interviews arranged (liaise with MD) W/c 22 November ‘10 Complete telephone interviews

29 November ‘10 Supervisory meeting – discuss initial findings December ’10 – early January ‘11 Transcribe interviews, collate and analyse findings.

Produce report.

Consider article for publishing?? Table 3.6: Proposed timetable for telephone interviews

As was the usual practice the proposed timetable was discussed with the supervisory team and it became obvious that the timetable was a little too ambitious and should be reconsidered. The amended timetable is shown at Table 3.7.

Date Action

29 November ‘10 Supervisory meeting – finalise questions

58

December ‘10 Complete telephone interviews

December ’10 to early January ‘11 Transcribe interviews, collate and analyse findings. Produce report.

Early January ‘11 Supervisory meeting – discuss initial findings 21 January ‘11 Focus group at Healthy Cities Network Meeting February ‘11 Complete analysis and chapter

Consider article for publishing?? Table 3.7: Revised timetable for telephone interviews

It was immediately obvious that the revised timetable was more realistic. It was also more precise and focused on each step of the process.

Eventually the six telephone interviews were scheduled to take place and as agreed the questions were emailed to each of the respondents at least two days prior to the interview taking place in order for the respondent to be fully prepared. This led to one of the respondents completing the responses in writing and emailing them back before the scheduled interview time. When the respondent was contacted it was confirmed that the respondent did not expect to add to the written responses during the proposed telephone interview and subsequently cancelled the interview, which was accepted but quite disappointing.

The remaining five interviews took place over a period of nine days at the times selected by the participants. The interviews were recorded using telephone recording equipment borrowed from the University of Central Lancashire (UCLan). Time was spent in the days preceding the interviews familiarising the use of the recording equipment and ensuring the equipment was in good working order. The recording equipment involved the attachment of a recording device onto the telephone handset.

The interviews were transcribed immediately following their completion to ensure as accurate a transcription as possible. It was intended to attempt to contain each interview to a maximum of 45 minutes, which was achieved in every case. However, the time it would take to complete the transcribing of each interview was unexpectedly long but necessary to ensure a complete and accurate record of the conversation was made. The recording was replayed at least five times and as soon as the researcher was satisfied that the transcription was accurate the recording was deleted.

All the participants were advised at the start of the interview that it was to be recorded and their permission to do this was obtained. It was also guaranteed that the

had been transcribed. Each of the interviewees was offered a copy of the transcription if required but they all declined.

During all the interviews notes were also taken to supplement the recording and contribute to a more accurate transcription.

The initial telephone interview findings were collated and developed into a presentation which was presented to a meeting of the UK Healthy Cities Network which was held in Liverpool a month after the interviews were completed (January 2011).

3.4.6 Change method?

The telephone interviews were the most appropriate interview method for this research due to the limited time and resources available. If the research were to be conducted again it is likely the same method would be chosen. However, by undertaking

telephone interviews a networking opportunity was missed.

3.4.7 Choose different criteria?

The questions developed for the interviews were based on Healthy Cities and HUP literature which directly correlated with this research aim, objectives and questions. The questions were pertinent and relevant and therefore appropriate to this research.