In a study of quality mathematics teaching, an electronic interview with multimedia stimulus resources was used with relevant professionals to obtain in-depth data relating to their own beliefs, and their reflective observations and evaluations of mathematics teaching practice. The electronic format enabled presentation of the same questions and multimedia stimulus material to every interviewee. Provision of a personal copy of the interview material, including all the stimulus resources, to the interviewees provided for a richer interview than would have been possible with a face-to-face interview in the more limited timeframe that would have been imposed. The opportunity for interviewees to reflect on questions and edit responses resulted in high quality data and interviewees found the electronic interview convenient and satisfying. Further advantages of the electronic format were the savings in organisation, travel and transcription. We believe that electronic interviews offer great potential to other researchers.
BarriballKLWhileA (1994) Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing19(2): 328–335.
3.
Booth-KewleySEdwardsJERosenfeldP (1992) Impression management, social desirability, and computer administration. Journal of Applied Psychology77(4): 562–566.
4.
CannellCFMillerPVOksenbergL (1981) Research on interviewing techniques. Sociological Methodology12(4): 389–437.
5.
CatterallMIbbotsonP (2000) Using projective techniques in education research. British Educational Research Journal26(2): 245–256.
6.
CouperMPHansenSE (2001) Computer-assisted interviewing. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (ed.) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 557–575.
7.
CrillyNBlackwellAFClarksonJ (2006) Graphic elicitation: using research diagrams as interview stimuli. Qualitative Research6(3): 341–366.
FenigSLevavIKohnRYelinN (1993) Telephone vs face-to-face interviewing in a community psychiatric survey. American Journal of Public Health83(6): 896–898.
10.
GubriumJFHolsteinJA (2001) From the individual interview to the interview society. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (ed.) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 3–32.
11.
JamesNBusherH(2006) Credibility, authenticity and voice: dilemmas in online interviewing. Qualitative Research6(3): 403–420.
12.
JohnsonJM(2002) In-depth interviewing. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (ed.) Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 103–119.
13.
LeeRM (1993) Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. London: Sage.
14.
LevinsonP (1990) Computer conferencing in the context of the evolution of media. In: HarasimLM (ed.) Online Education: Perspectives on a New Environment. New York: Praeger, 3–14.
15.
LewisJ (2006) Making order out of a contested disorder: the utilisation of online support groups in social science research. Qualitative Researcher3: 4–7.
16.
LindlofTRTaylorBC (2002) Qualitative Communication Research Methods (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
17.
McCrackenG (1988) The Long Interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
MehoLI (2006) Email interviewing in qualitative research: a methodological discussion. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology57(10): 1284–1296.
19.
MillerC (1995) In-depth interviewing by telephone: some practical considerations. Evaluation and Research in Education9(1): 29–38.
20.
NewmanJCDes JarlaisDCTurnerCFGribbleJCooleyPPaoneD (2002) The differential effects of face-to-face and computer interview modes. American Journal of Public Health92(2): 294–297.
21.
RichmanWLKieslerSWeisbandSDrasgowF (1999) A meta-analytic study of social desirability distortion in computer-administered questionnaires, traditional questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology84(5): 754–775.
22.
RossCEMirowskyJ (1984) Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior25(2): 189–197.
23.
SchwabDP (2005) Research Methods for Organizational Studies (2nd Edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
SchaeferDRDillmanDA (1998) Development of a standard email methodology: results of an experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly62(3): 378–397.
25.
StephensN (2007) Collecting data from elites and ultra elites: telephone and face-to-face interviews with macroeconomists. Qualitative Research7(2): 203–216.
26.
SturgesJHanrahanKJ (2004) Comparing telephone and face-to-face qualitative interviewing: a research note. Qualitative Research4(1): 107–118.
27.
TausigJEFreemanEW (1988) The next best thing to being there: conducting the clinical research interview by telephone. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry58(3): 418–427.
28.
TörrönenJ (2002) Semiotic theory on qualitative interviewing using stimulus texts. Qualitative Research2(3): 343–362.
29.
YunGWTrumboCW (2000) Comparative response to a survey executed by post, email, and web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication6. URL: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol6/issue1/yun.html
