How to Overcome the Secretiveness of a Group: Opportunities of Online Interviews

Abstract

In a pandemic, qualitative methodologies and in-person interviews, the key to understanding the experiences lived by participants in social phenomena, proved to be ill-suited. As a result of the restrictions imposed during this period, the challenge was even more considerable in the research of groups and practices marked by secretiveness and self-closing, in that our presence in the field, always marked by hurdles, was impracticable. In this text, we propose a reflection on the experience of conducting online interviews with university students (Porto, Portugal) involved in praxe (hazing), a complex and multidimensional social phenomenon that profoundly shapes academic life in Portuguese universities. We will discuss the differences between holding in-person interviews before the pandemic and online interviews during the lockdown. We draw attention to practical, methodological, and ethical considerations in adapting research to an online context and conclude that, despite the challenges, online interviews opened up surprising opportunities for collecting these students’ experiences.

Introduction

The pandemic brought obvious impediments to the normal conduct of research work, particularly regarding fieldwork and holding in-person interviews. At a time when many of the practices under analysis were suspended due to the physical distancing measures imposed, research objectives and how to access the groups under study needed to be reconsidered. The challenge became even more severe during the nationwide lockdown.

We were faced with an added challenge in the case of the study of groups and practices marked by secretiveness and self-closing, in that our presence in the field, always marked by hurdles, was impracticable. It is in this regard that we propose an analysis of the experience of conducting online interviews with university students involved in praxe, a complex and multidimensional social phenomenon that profoundly marks academic life in Portuguese universities.

We analysed the challenges and opportunities in collecting praxe experiences through online interviews. We also discussed the practical, methodological, and ethical challenges of readapting to this new situation, bearing in mind the secretiveness that characterises praxe and any self-consciousness on the part of those involved in sharing their experiences via an online conversation. In fieldwork that was, until then, characterised by limitations in accessing various forms of the phenomenon and the sharing of experiences plagued by some distancing imposed by the students, it is important to expound on the potential and limitations associated with online interviews. Did this medium encourage more or less informality? Could it be a more effective way to shake off the inhibitions of the interviewee and encourage sharing with the researcher? What impact does it have on the distance between both, and what negotiations does it imply? Will it give us knowledge of new dimensions of the experiences under analysis?

We also propose to reflect on the new challenges it brought to the researcher, who was thus confronted with the need to rethink their role in a ‘new field’, facing various ethical dilemmas, a new way of establishing dialogue, and a different rapport with their interviewees.

Object of study and methodological approach

Praxe is a set of ritualised practices that contribute to the socialisation of university students taking part therein, following the norms of the group they are a part of (Lopes et al., 2018; Silva et al., 2023). Older students engaged in these practices welcome the new students with several physical and psychological challenges with the aim of testing them. There is a clear understanding that older and new students have different roles to play, based on significant inequality of power and symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 2011). In recent decades, this practice has become the leading and most effective mechanism for onboarding higher education institutions (HEI) in Portugal, due to its aptness to welcome new students and the speed with which it ensures their integration. Joining this new group, which has rules and norms shared by all and where everyone has a specific place within a well-defined hierarchy, gives students new to higher education (HE) a sense of invaluable security at a time of transition and instability. It is, therefore, a rite of passage or initiation, deeply transformative for those who take part therein, who, after overcoming the challenge, see themselves as a legitimate member of a new community (Dias and Sá, 2013; Ribeiro, 2001). But while the praxe is inextricably linked to this phase of onboarding HEI, it goes further than that. Rising in the group’s hierarchy is achieved by overcoming new challenges, a process which, for many students, is integral to their life at university and may last throughout their academic journey. Another way of characterising the praxe is its secretiveness, which has been found to foster a strong sense of belonging in those who get involved, while at the same time evading external scrutiny.

Despite having strong roots in Portuguese university life, this phenomenon is not exclusive to Portugal. Other phenomena equivalent to the praxe can be found in other countries, albeit with notable differences and subject to different appropriations. The best-known and studied case is that of hazing, manifested in particular in the USA (Allan and Madden, 2008), but equivalent phenomena can be found in Brazil (trote) (Castro, 2009; de Mello Villaça and Palácios, 2010; de Siqueira et al., 2012), Spain (novatadas) (Marcitllach and Freire, 2013), and France (bizutage) (Larguèze, 1997; Subramanian and Suquet, 2016).

The research project in progress focuses on the intensive study of this phenomenon in one of the largest and most recognised HE context in Portugal, the city of Porto. We have defined as the main focus the study of its manifestations in this context and the social environment that encourages it. The aim is to understand the diverse appropriations made thereof, the practices in which it is embodied, and the discourses underpinning them. The methodological approach of this research aims at understanding a dynamic phenomenon, in which individuals and their subjectivities should be considered situated and as a part of the greater whole. We based our approach on a comprehensive or inductive paradigm to understand the phenomenon (Guerra, 2006) and developed a methodological strategy based on ethnography’s principals (Atkinson et al., 2007). The semi-directive interview (Ghiglione and Matalon, 2005) was chosen as the principal means of systematically collecting experiences in the praxe, a useful option under this hermetic phenomenon that dodges observation.

The script of the interviews carried out intending to understand the diverse experiences in praxes is based on three dimensions: (1) characterisation of the interviewee (general and family background); (2) higher education (expectations regarding HE and career; representations of HE; transition to/integration into HE); and (3) praxe (path; learning; symbols and ceremonies; sociabilities). The script topics aim to encourage interviewees to share their ideas and opinions flexibly. It should be noted that alongside these interviews, fieldwork – typical in an ethnographical approach – involved many informal conversations. The collection of the experiences of these students will allow us to consider different ways of relating to the phenomenon and identify profiles in which these might be classified. At the time of the interviews, students had participated in praxe for at least 1 year (i.e. they attended at least the second year of university). Diversity was ensured in terms of age, social class, gender, year, course and HEIs attended, the situation regarding permanent residence, and place of origin (if displaced or not). Some of the experiences collected were ongoing, while other interviewees indicated that they had pulled away from praxe.

In March 2020, university officials declared the suspension of praxe in Porto, when fieldwork was in full swing, as a preventive measure amidst the pandemic. Shortly after, HEIs were closed and online learning became the norm. We have addressed the exceptional nature of such a suspension elsewhere (Maia, 2020), as well as the difficulties in adapting to it – the security that rituals provide lies in it being replicated year after year, which was called into question, for the first time in decades. We focused our efforts on the methodological and ethical issues that such a suspension implied, including: How to continue working on the ground if the ground had disappeared somehow? How to ensure that the proximity to students, based on relationships of trust that, in some cases, took months to build, would not be jeopardised? How to remotely guarantee the expansion of the network of contacts which had been established until then on the ground, to ensure continuity of work? How to continue collecting the experiences of the students?

Online interviews

During the pandemic, many researchers were faced with the need to rethink methodological approaches. The measures to prevent the spread of the virus or mitigate its consequences, which in general were also taken in Portugal, included, in its extreme form, a national lockdown. Forms of interaction in HEIs changed rapidly and profoundly. Online learning became the preferred teaching and learning medium, and all educational establishments were closed for a few months, followed by significant access restrictions. This implied an evident reduction in people’s movement and changes in sociability dynamics, to which students were not immune.

During this phase, when the overwhelming majority of ongoing fieldwork was abruptly put on hold, the swift contributions of Miller (2020) or of the Center for Global Ethnography (2020), launching a series of conversations entitled ‘Doing Ethnography Remotely’ and allowing researchers from different scientific fields and regions of the world to engage in dialogue, several challenges to research and ways to address them came to light. While the potential of online methods and digital or virtual ethnography did not emerge in this context, but has been widely discussed, particularly in the last two decades – the work of sociologist Christine Hine (2000) is considered a milestone in this discussion – it is nevertheless true that taking advantage of online methods placed this topic high on the agenda.

Online methods are not exclusive to research in the context of a pandemic or of works that focus on the interaction of individuals in the digital world. Moreover, using tools such as the telephone or platforms such as Skype for holding interviews, for example, is anything but a novelty in the current context. The difference, as Howlett (2022) contends, is that these mediated approaches have become a need, rather than simply the result of a choice by researchers, and that they have been implemented abruptly, without the overwhelming majority of fieldwork already underway having previously given them some thought. While people quickly adapted to them, Howlett (2022) raises other questions: how do these tools change the process of data collection?; do they yield the same data, more fragile data, or, instead, do they allow us to go further than we have managed so far?; how do these changes involve a transformation in the way we look at the object of study and in the object of study itself? We will not go into more detail, but Howlett (2022) also added to the already broad discussion on what can be understood as fieldwork and the very notion of ‘field’ in the online world (Hine, 2000, 2015; Pink et al., 2016).

In the discussion about the techniques to be used, O’Connor and Madge (2017) have stated that online interviews have been used as a viable technique for collecting data for less than two decades, with asynchronous interviews, via e-mail, being the first to take shape, followed by synchronous interviews based on written interaction, such as chats. Synchronous interviews through video and images have only been introduced more recently, associated with the development of software already used for videoconferencing, such as Skype, and their potential and limitations have been the subject of discussion (Deakin and Wakefield, 2014; O’Connor and Madge, 2017). More similar to in-person interviews, they allow the researcher to see and converse in real time with their interlocutors, enhance verbal and non-verbal cues, and ensure greater spontaneity in responses than those obtained in writing.

In the case of our research, online interviews were the only way to continue the fieldwork done so far – given the suspension of praxes, observation, which until then had been hampered by major constraints, was no longer workable, and although in-person interviews remained in place during one of the phases of the pandemic, they had to be replaced when the nationwide lockdown was declared. It should be noted, however, that some interviewees were unwilling to share their experiences in this medium, preferring in-person interviews, a decision that we obviously respected and took up when lockdown measures were lifted.

The shift to the online medium raised an initial doubt: would these students be comfortable sharing their experiences in this format? Our interlocutors came up with solutions in conversations during fieldwork, in which they voiced their opinion, which was positive right from the start. Due to the age range of potential interviewees, it was apparent that these tools would be easy to use, mainly because they were already being used by their HEI in distance learning.

The online interviews were carried out online via the Zoom digital platform, which allows for the recording of sound and image – if sound alone cannot be recorded, it is possible to distinguish both later and eliminate the one that does not interest us, in this case, the video. Students interviewed were never selected on any online platform. What we did was to have our interlocutors on the ground continue to expand the network of contacts through a snowball effect. The first interaction between the researcher and interviewees was never done on the Zoom platform, but rather a previous exchange of messages, mostly via WhatsApp, to establish contact, discuss the ongoing research, schedule the interview, and clarify any doubts. It should also be noted that the script was not tested for the first time in the online interviews, as face-to-face interviews had already been conducted. Between November 2020 and March 2021, 17 interviews were carried out. We will now discuss the challenges, opportunities, and ethical issues raised in the interviews.

Methodological challenges

The most obvious challenge in holding online interviews is the perceived increased difficulty in managing the interaction with the other. This challenge should, of course, take into account how the interview is conducted, but above all, the central topic of the conversation and the personality traits of the interviewee – if some issues are harder to share or if the interviewees are particularly inhibited from speaking, face-to-face interaction is probably just as challenging as online interaction (Iacono et al., 2016; Seitz, 2015). As we will explore later in this article, when we address the opportunities yielded by this medium, we will see that, as suggested by Iacono et al. (2016), some interviews become less effective and provide less rich data precisely because they are taking place in the context about which the interviewee wishes to speak in the interview, and then they become more inhibited to do so without feeling embarrassed. However, if the interaction between researcher and interviewee is always done online, weak bonds are expected between them, which will allow the interviewee to give up more easily due to their lack of commitment to the research (O’Connor and Madge, 2017).

Technical image and sound difficulties are perhaps the biggest obstacles to interaction, in that they hinder its normal flow, especially because they involve the interruption of lines of thought and the need to repeat ideas that the other did not hear, ultimately making the conversation longer and unnecessarily tiring, and distorting the clarity of discourse. It is also true, however, that where these technical glitches do not exist, the dialogue recording tends to offer clearer images and better acoustic quality, making transcription easier.

We also lose the ability to observe body language enabled by in-person contexts, as the other person’s image is cut off roughly at the chest (if the interviewee uses a mobile phone, their image is a vertical rectangle, or even smaller). Moreover, it is impossible to look the other person in the eye, due to the position of the camera on the device (Iacono et al., 2016). The challenge here is to pay close attention to the facial expression of the interviewee while still ensuring that our expressions convey understanding and emotion (Seitz, 2015) – which, oddly enough, was more difficult in face-to-face interviews conducted later, as we had to don face masks.

While the self-awareness of the interviewee (and that of the researcher) when seeing their image reflected in a rectangle when speaking does not make behaviours more calculated, it nevertheless ensures greater self-monitoring of such behaviours. In essence, it is as if we are having a conversation looking at the other and, at the same, looking at our own reflection in a mirror. This is not to say that in-person conversations do not involve self-control of our behaviour, especially when we are in an interview, which, however informal it may be, is always a time of mutual observation and analysis. However, we have noted that in online interviews individuals show more self-awareness, particularly of their gestures and physical appearance. Note that the only female interviewee who requested that the camera be turned off during the interview said she did not want to expose her sloppy appearance due to being in lockdown, studying and working from home. As found in other works (Jenner and Myers, 2019), the loss of the visual element completely transforms the interaction with the interviewee, making the conversation especially challenging and even shorter, as also happened in our case. The lack of non-verbal cues makes it especially difficult to understand whether a moment of silence means the end of an answer or just a pause for thought.

Another challenge, also referred to by Howlett (2022), is that in a mediated interview, the researcher has little, if any, capacity to control the elements of distraction. While it is true that they can try to prevent these distractions on their side, the fact is that the interviewee can choose where to sit or stand, and, in some cases, the distractions are a result of the setting they have chosen – the overwhelming majority of our interviewees were at home at the time of the interviews, and brief interruptions from family members or housemates were relatively common. Other distractions, such as telephone calls, mobile phone notifications, and even pets were also identified.

The main difference we found in in-person interviews is that they are more informal, especially in terms of dress attire, as also identified in other works (Howlett, 2022). While in in-person interviews students chose non-formal clothing, in the online interviews, clothing tended to be even more informal. As noted above, the overwhelming majority of interviewees were at home during the interviews, most of which were held during the lockdown, when students primarily studied and worked from home. Accordingly, interviewees clearly tended to choose more comfortable clothes (some even wore dressing gowns), and some even felt the need to justify wearing them, saying that they did not have to get ready to leave the house. The informality that tends to characterise these interviews can also be identified in the choices of the location where the interview is conducted – for example, one of the female interviewees was sitting on her bed.

Ethical challenges

In the conduct of our research, we also highlight some ethical challenges. Ethical concerns arise in every research work, and online research at this level is rather influenced by commonly shared ethical procedures established in offline research (Eynon et al., 2017; Iacono et al., 2016). The difficulty lies precisely in the fact that these guidelines sometimes prove inadequate or difficult to adapt, particularly given the three essential ethical principles: confidentiality, anonymity, and informed consent (Eynon et al., 2017; Iacono et al., 2016). We know that it is difficult to strictly follow these principles in many research works in social sciences, given the various forms that fieldwork can take, as researchers have different rapports with their interlocutors on the ground, and these will influence data collection, so they greatly depend on the method and resulting interactions (the case of ethnographical approaches is particularly true in this respect, with contact being marked by informality and mutual trust, making formal consent somewhat inappropriate). Moreover, complex relationships also come to the fore when we think of online research and the variety of challenges faced depending on the technical tool available (Lobe et al., 2020). We will not delve into the details of whether ethical principles for the online medium should be the same, new, or adapted from the principles guiding offline research (Eynon et al., 2017), but rather focus on what these authors discuss about the ethical dilemmas of online research considering three predominant approaches to online data collection: the use of online methods for collecting data directly from individuals; the online analysis of interactions in virtual environments; the online social networks as research laboratories. We will focus on the first approach for reasons of relevance to our case.

The first challenge is that conducting interviews using these digital tools implies, even if unintentionally, that the researcher has access to certain aspects of the interviewee’s life which would not be the case in a face-to-face interview. In our case, the feeling that we were invading the private space of those we interviewed and getting a glimpse of how they lived was a delicate aspect and felt like an abusive intrusion – although users can distort the background image in Zoom, only one of our interviewees did so. While in-person interviews were conducted on neutral grounds such as in a university setting or our research centre rooms, the fact is that we gained access to a place that is anything but neutral for the other person. Although the contrary also applies, seeing that the interviewee can also observe where we are, we should not ignore the uneven positions of interviewee-interviewer, or the power dynamics established between them. Moreover, the interviews are recorded. In this sense, the issue of public-private becomes complex, as we record the images of these individuals’ houses, even if unintentionally, making the issue of the protection of privacy and confidentiality even more sensitive (O’Connor and Madge, 2017).

The priority of the researcher is, therefore, to ensure that the interviewee is not at risk in doing the interview: the anonymity initially promised must be assured regardless of the information we obtain about the individual; the confidentiality of data and privacy of the interviewee must be guaranteed, both during the interactions and in the subsequent data storage and processing phase; the interviewee must understand what anonymity, the confidentiality of data, and their consent means. Understandably, the issue of anonymity can be questioned due to the fact that the face and name of interviewees appear on the screen and that this image is recorded. On the contrary, obtaining truly informed consent is not simple in any context, as this consent changes throughout the research process and, therefore, needs to be renegotiated time and again (Eynon et al., 2017). In this case, it might be easier to obtain verbal consent instead of written consent in face-to-face interaction, as it involves less pressure and formality (Eynon et al., 2017); on the other hand, asking for informed consent verbally may not be the ideal way to start an interview, as this is when the researcher wants to ensure that the interviewee is comfortable and ready to share information (O’Connor and Madge, 2017).

To ensure compliance with fundamental ethical principles, we opted for the following solutions: all interviewees were informed about the objectives of the research in progress, the specific goals of the interview in which they were participating (giving them the general guidelines of the script), and how the interview would be carried out. They were also allowed to ask questions, including on the recording of the interview before it started; the interviewees were free to ask further questions if those arose during the interview, and to introduce topics deemed relevant or of interest to them; the interviewees were questioned about the recording, and a verbal commitment was made to ensure that image recording would be deleted at the end of the interview, with the researcher keeping only the audio for transcription purposes; the interviewee was always asked to authorise the start of recording, and immediately afterwards was informed that recording had started (Zoom offers a visual indication – a small red circle at the top of the screen – that the recording is in progress); when the recording began, we repeated, for the record, what had been agreed off the record, that is, the guarantee of anonymity, the confidentiality of shared data, and the exclusive use thereof for scientific purposes, and that the interview was being recorded with the interviewee’s consent, under the researcher’s pledge to delete the image recording and keep the audio.

The guarantee of compliance with ethical procedures thus appears to depend on the ethical principles shared by researchers in the same scientific area, those already established within each methodological approach, and on the self-monitoring of the researcher through control mechanisms such as the field diary. Deconstructing a hermetic notion of these principles is essential, realising they can be adaptable, especially to the contexts under analysis. This does not mean having a relativist approach where anything goes, but instead having a policy of openness and plurality when it comes to online ethical issues (O’Connor and Madge, 2017). As Eynon et al. (2017) note, researchers must strike a balance to ensure that interviewees are protected and well-informed, without putting too much pressure or burdens associated with informed consent procedures or with ensuring anonymity and confidentiality of data, which could be counterproductive and detrimental to research.

In the last stage of this process, researchers should explain and share with their peers the ethical dilemmas encountered and the solutions to resolve them, which are essential for deepening the discussion on the issue, dealing with every possible avenue, and learning from mistakes.

Opportunities

Despite the methodological and ethical challenges mentioned above, online interviews offer interesting opportunities that call for a broader discussion.

First, the obvious benefit of online interviews is the flexibility of place, but especially of time, substantially increasing the availability and flexibility of interviewees (Iacono et al., 2016). This made it possible to interview students who, for example, were not in Porto or to hold the interviews at night and during the weekend, the only time when some interviewees were free.

Second, it was interesting to note how quickly interviewees seemed to forget that they were being recorded – this became quite obvious, as their speech became more relaxed, and even contained argot or curse words. It did not take long for interviewees to slacken their cautious discourse – this sometimes can make the interviewee feel tenser in in-person interviews. While the presence of a tape recorder in face-to-face interviews, which interviewees tend to look at during the conversation, imparts more formality to the moment and inhibits a more spontaneous and less controlled sharing of information, in online interviews this inhibition wore off quickly.

Another positive aspect relates to a greater sense of symmetry in the interviewer-interviewee rapport, as others have also pointed out (Howlett, 2022). As stated above, the dynamics of this rapport on the ground tend to be complex, in the case of an occult phenomenon such as this, the fieldwork can be marked, even if only at an early stage, by distrust or confrontation. We cannot ignore that the idea of investigating these practices is perceived by many of those involved as somewhat abusive. The secretiveness surrounding them and the symbolic value of belonging to a group that is, partly, exclusive, fuels distrust in relation to those who do not, and the desire for self-enclosure. Online interviews seemed, however, to mitigate this issue of distrust, by doing away completely with confrontational attitudes, which we only came across in in-person interviews.

Despite all these opportunities, the ones that surprised and interested us the most were related to the content of the actual interviews. The online sharing experience can be so immersive for all involved that it becomes encouraging, making the interviewee feel comfortable in sharing aspects of their life that would have otherwise been more challenging in a face-to-face context (Hine, 2015; Howlett, 2022; Jenner and Myers, 2019). As we know, the fact that researchers are not part of the daily network of contacts of interviewees can truly help the latter share more easily aspects of their lives, experiences that they consider sensitive or opinions they feel could be harmful or criticised if shared with people close to them (Jenner and Myers, 2019). This appeared to have been the case of interviews held during the lockdown period, in that some interviewees felt it was a breath of fresh air that allowed them to talk about a topic unrelated to their studies/work and to the pandemic to someone outside the group with whom they were sharing lockdown imposition.

Furthermore, being able to talk about the praxe (hazing) experience in a context that had nothing to do with it, which is not the case when the interview is conducted at the HEI of that student, removed any potential external pressure, where the interviewee knew that they would not be seen, heard, or interrupted by anyone connected to their hazing experience. This context issue had already been identified previously – the solution found was to hold the interviews at the research centre where we work, an opportunity welcomed by our interlocutors. It should nevertheless be noted that, in this respect, online interviews were even more advantageous. Sharing experiences in settings where interviewees feel comfortable can be even more productive than sharing in an in-person environment, especially if this means being in a less familiar place and disclosing sensitive aspects of their lives (Iacono et al., 2016). Again, it is crucial to remember that our interviewees engage in a practice that feeds on its own secretiveness, which means that for these students sharing their experiences is somehow breaking down a barrier that, although allegedly does not exist, is nevertheless there. Talking to a researcher means giving an outsider ‘entry’ into that phenomenon, albeit controlled (each student reported on what they understood, managing what they shared, and what they left out). It is also essential to realise that the tone of the conversation tends to be emotional or confessional when it comes to students who are no longer involved in those practices, rendering the interview particularly sensitive. Following on from Jenner and Myers (2019), we believe that when the topic of the conversation is potentially sensitive, it is more critical to decide on the setting that will yield richer and more in-depth data than to assess the challenges of the medium. In other words, although managing the online interaction may be more demanding for the researcher, this medium is preferable if the interviewee is in a place where they feel more at ease to share. The privacy afforded by online interviews is a central issue which should not be overlooked, especially in the case of such phenomena.

Some interviewees also showed a remarkable level of commitment to the conversation, emotionally and intimately sharing information in one of the cases. We also noted the length of some of the conversations, which went on for a very long time by choice and desire of the interviewees themselves – Holt (2010) also touches on the issue of lengthy conversations when discussing the advantages of telephone interviews. Once again, the fact that interviewees were at home made time be perceived differently. Moreover, and because the collective dimension of the experience is lost when the experience is interrupted, it was also interesting to note that interviewees tended to share various opinions and expectations regarding very recent matters, for example, the suspension of the praxe or the consequences that this could have for its future, in contrast to topics on which the group shares an official discourse, well established and disseminated among its participants.

Finally, it was fascinating to note that students talked about their experiences when these were already suspended, and many of them verbalised the opportunity that this conversation gave them to revisit the group’s practices and dynamics, which they were already missing. Taking into account the secretiveness surrounding this phenomenon and the interviewees’ inhibition in sharing what they experience, we contemplate the possibility of our interviews being, after all, a privileged moment for remembering and appreciating these experiences, which was one of the most interesting twists of this move to the online medium.

Final notes

In the case under consideration, interviews were the only way to continue the study of a phenomenon that had suddenly come to a halt. Nationwide lockdown increased the need to find a way to maintain contact with the participants on the ground and to continue collecting their experiences. The challenge of studying a closed group on the ground was compounded by the fear that the group would not be accessible online.

We realised that, in general, mediated or online interviews cannot fully replace in-person interviews, just as face-to-face interaction among individuals cannot, in any circumstance, be significantly replaced by online interaction. The methodological challenges addressed above, especially concerning the management of interaction with the other, are telling examples of the difference between face-to-face talking and a mediated interview. If we take into account the development of ethnographical research, it will be easier to understand the shortcomings of these tools, which fall short of prolonged in-person activities, observation and regularity on the ground marked by informal contact and interaction, which, even so, online tools do not guarantee in the same way.

Nevertheless, and especially considering the study of a group characterised by secretiveness, online interviews unexpectedly and surprisingly opened up opportunities that would significantly contribute to the data collection process and the actual data: flexibility of scheduling and location, allowing us to better adapt to interviewees’ convenience, allowed us to reach more students and faster than before; online interviews enhance in interviewees an interesting ability to relax, as they quickly seem to forget that they are being recorded, fostering a more spontaneous conversation and less self-control in their discourse than in face-to-face interviews; we identified a greater sense of symmetry in the interviewer-interviewee rapport, washing away any confrontation or distrust situations, like those found in face-to-face interviews; the ability of interviewees to go into greater detail about their experiences and share more intimate aspects of their lives, enabled by the fact that they are in familiar spaces, which gives them a greater sense of comfort and safety; the remarkable level of commitment to the interviews, both in terms of the type and duration of sharing, was reflected in the richness and depth of data collected.

The fact that these interviews were conducted during the lockdown and were like a breath of fresh air for interviewees, that is, moments when they were allowed to think and talk about something other than study/work or the pandemic, and to do so with an outsider, was particularly relevant. The fact that the interviews took place when the praxe was suspended turned them into a moment for the students to remember a dimension of their lives that they missed and wished they could bring back.

Whereas in some objects of study, online interviews are considered complementary work tools for data collection within the scope of qualitative research, other cases exist in which online interviews are considered a more productive technique, particularly if we realise that this is how interviewees share more and deeper information and in more comfortable and safe conditions, as was the case in our research, the online medium did not lessen the interview’s effectiveness in data collection, nor was the data collected of inferior quality or less robust than those obtained in face-to-face interviews. Online interviews revealed unexpected opportunities that should be taken into consideration in the study of similar phenomena.