The interview arrangement

Apart from the conventional method of conducting interviews on a face-to-face basis there is a growing number of qualitative studies that endorse the use of remote techniques, such as telephone or Skype interviews under particular circumstances (e.g.

Bryman, 2008; Saunders et al., 2009; King and Horrocks, 2010). As the present research project dealt with 30 survivors who were spread over three different countries (UK, Germany and Switzerland) it was decided to also incorporate remote techniques, beside the use of face-to-face interviews for the purpose of an efficient and successful material collection. A detailed explanation why and how the individual methods were applied will be illustrated in the following.

Face-to-face interviews

The most common form of conducting a one-to-one interview involves a meeting where one researcher and one participant comes together (Denscombe, 2010). In other words, they meet face-to-face and the communication takes place synchronously in time and place (Opdenakker, 2006). Besides the benefit that there is no significant time delay between questions and responses, this method also offers the advantage of visual and/or social cues (e.g. voice, intonation, body language) which may give the

researcher information additional to the verbal answers provided by the interviewee (Opdenakker, 2006; King and Horrocks, 2010). This is important for the present study, as downsizing survivors may also use non-verbal communication such as gestures or signals to underpin their views and ideas when they talk about sensitive topics such as their situation post-downsizing. Against this background, the majority of survivor interviews (20 interviews) were conducted on a face-to-face basis, where the researcher met with each individual survivor.

One important step in the case of face-to-face interviews is the definition of an appropriate venue or “physical space” in which the interviews can be conducted, as such a choice may have a serious influence on how the interview proceeds and consequently on the outcome (King and Horrocks, 2010, p.43). To ensure that survivors feel comfortable with the interview location it was up to them to make a choice about a place to meet. As the vast majority of face-to-face interviews took place in the South West of England and the researcher himself was based in Cheltenham, survivors either invited the researcher to their territory (their home or their workplace) or they were willing to come to the premises of the University of Gloucestershire for the interview. In each case however, it was ensured that the location was convenient for the survivors and that they were not faced with any difficulties or stress resulting from travel or private time constraints (King and Horrocks, 2010).

In the context of the physical environment, King and Horrocks (2010) defined three aspects which are of particular importance when conducting an interview: comfort, privacy and quiet. With regard to the first requirement comfort, they argued that it is not only the physical comfort but also the psychological comfort which is important when interviewing a person. This means that if participants feel tense or unsettled it

may be reflected in their responses (King and Horrocks, 2010). In practical terms this implies that seats for instance should be arranged in such a way that they encourage a comfortable interaction between the researcher and the participant (Denscombe, 2010).

However, it is crucial, that the researcher does not sit directly opposite to the interviewee, as this may create a confrontational feeling, where the interviewee feels pressurized and thus uncomfortable. To address these issues and to ensure that survivors felt comfortable during the interview, the seating was arranged at an angle and with little space between the researcher and the interviewee. Thus it was possible not only to hear and to see the survivor but also to identify visual cues associated with his/her responses (King and Horrocks, 2010).

The second requirement King and Horrocks (2010) referred to is privacy. This implies that the researcher should avoid the danger that the interview is interrupted or disturbed in any form. To reduce this risk, a meeting room at the University of Gloucestershire was booked in advance and for a sufficient amount of time. Thus, the interview, but also formal things such as the introduction or the briefing could be carried out without the danger that anyone was interrupting the conversation (King and Horrocks, 2010). In line with the third requirement, which emphasizes the need for a quiet location, all interviews at the University were only conducted in meeting rooms with closable doors. Open space areas or shared offices were not used, as this would have posed the risk of too much noise and thereby also decreased the privacy.

In all face-to-face interviews, which were conducted at a survivor’s home or their workplace, the researcher had limited influence on arranging the physical setting (e.g.

seating) at the interview location. However, in this case each of the survivors was informed about the requirements in terms of comfort, privacy and quiet so that they

could arrange an appropriate room prior to the interview. The possibility to meet with some survivors at their home was beneficial, as such a meeting place conveyed familiarity and comfort and thus facilitated the talk about sensitive issues related to their experience of downsizing survival (King and Horrocks, 2010).

Remote interviews

Remote techniques such as telephone or Skype interviews are being used more and more to gather meaningful information in qualitative research (King and Horrocks, 2010; Denscombe, 2010). Such methods are described as a “synchronous communication of time” and “asynchronous communication of place” (Opdenakker, 2006, p.4). This means that the interview takes place in real-time, but researcher and participants are at different places. The main reason for conducting remote interviews is the physical distance between the researcher and the participants (King and Horrocks, 2010, Denscombe, 2010). This has implications for the present study, as the researcher was based in Cheltenham (UK) but participating survivors, as discussed already in sub-section 4.2.2, were not only from the UK but also geographically spread over Germany and Switzerland. Against this background 10 German and Swiss survivors were interviewed via telephone or Skype respectively. This allowed the bridging of the physical distance between the UK and these countries, without requiring the researcher travelling long distances across Germany and Switzerland.

This saved him both, valuable time and money.

Besides the advantages resulting for the researcher when conducting remote interviews, participants may also embrace these interview techniques, as it provides them with a “greater sense of anonymity” and thus enables them to speak more openly about sensitive topics and personal stories, compared to when they would participate in

a face-to-face interview (King and Horrocks, 2010, p.80). Even though participating survivors did not explicitly mention that they prefer to conduct the interview via telephone or Skype, the researcher got the impression that some survivors were more willing to share their story of downsizing survival on the phone than in his physical presence. Thus, to conduct the interview via remote technique became also beneficial for the survivors, as they may have felt less distressed when answering the researcher’s questions (Bryman, 2008).

However, one major disadvantage frequently mentioned in relation to the use of telephone interviews is the absence of visual cues (King and Horrocks, 2010, Denscombe, 2010). King and Horrocks (2010, p.82) argued that unlike in the case of face-to-face interviews, where visual cues convey “much of the richness and nuance”

of a particular meaning, a telephone interview lacks the opportunity to ascribe meaning through facial expressions or non-verbal communication. This in turn implies the risk that information beneficial to understanding participants’ thoughts might get lost (Denscombe, 2010).

Although the concerns revolving around the absence of visual cues when conducting telephone interviews seems to be plausible, Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) and Bryman (2008) provided evidence, which to a certain extent undermines the criticism against the use of telephone interviews. In their studies Sturges and Hanrahan (2004) explicitly compared the transcripts of telephone interviews with those of face-to-face interviews and concluded that there were no significant differences in terms of “quantity, nature and depth of responses” (Sturges and Hanrahan, 2004, p.113). Against the assumption that adopting telephone interviews would weaken the study’s outcome, Sturges and Hanrahan (2004, p.107) assert that “telephone interviews can be used productively in

qualitative research”. Therefore, and taking into account the above mentioned challenges, when talking to survivors via a remote technique, telephone interviews were considered as an efficient method to collect meaningful information about survivors’ experience of downsizing survival.

Nevertheless, to maximize the effectiveness of the telephone interviews and to mitigate the risk that the absence of visual cues would lead to any reduction in received meaning, the following steps were undertaken. Before the telephone interview took place, participating survivors received a separate briefing about what the topic was about and the interaction which was desired. Moreover, it was made clear to the candidates that they had to reserve enough time for the telephone interview, in order to avoid any stress and to ensure that an in-depth discussion could take place (King and Horrocks, 2010). During the telephone interview the researcher paid special attention not only to what the survivors said, but also how they said it, as alternation in voice conveys particular meaning and may be similar in importance to gestures or other non-verbal communication (Owen and Webb, 2004). Compared to the face-to-face interview, the researcher also played more of an active role with a stronger focus on probing for relevant answers. This helped to resolve ambiguities resulting from a lack of visual cues (King and Horrocks, 2010), but also encouraged the individual survivor to open up and be more talkative if their voice became too monotonous. Finally, additional notes were made immediately after the interview, because making notes at a later point would bear the risk that significant phrases or statements could be forgotten as it becomes much harder to recall information if there is not a visual image of the participant which could serve the researcher as a reminder (Owen and Webb, 2004).

Besides telephone interviews, Skype technology was used to conduct the interviews with survivors. Skype is a fast growing software application for making internet based telephone or video calls (King and Horrocks, 2010; Denscombe, 2010). It can be downloaded for free and is easy to use. Using a webcam, it is possible to have visual contact with the person on the other end of the line and to talk to him/her in real time (King and Horrocks, 2010). To take advantage of these benefits, this study applied Skype to interview survivors via a video call. This provided the researcher with the possibility to have a face-to-face conversation with survivors for virtually no cost, whilst making them as “real” as possible. Even though there is a slight delay when interviewing someone (e.g. King and Horrocks, 2010), the criticism that remote techniques lack the opportunity for visual cues cannot be accepted for Skype interviews, as participants’ gestures or body language are directly transmitted and visible on the interviewer’s screen. King and Horrocks (2010, p.85) argued that “by selecting video full screen you can almost experience the person being in the room with you”. Thus, a Skype interview facilitates that survivors appear authentic during the conversation and enable the researcher not only to identify communication expressed through words, but also to read non-verbal communication, which might be used additionally by survivors to underpin the meaning of a particular event.