It'd be helpful to know 1) what you've cited so far in defense of them, and 2) what disciplinary audience you're working with (eg., anthropology journal reviewers would react to IM interviews different from psychology journal reviewers). There are a number of papers that pop up from a simple Google search – https://www.google.com/search?q=instant+message+interviews+method – that seem to agree that IM really isn't that different, though it'd seem adequate to map out the area and cite a fair amount of people in a few sentences as justification. Alexander Leavitt PhD Student USC Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism http://alexleavitt.com Twitter: @alexleavitt On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Jenny Davis <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu> wrote:
Hi all,
Long time lurker and responder, first time inquirer.
I am working on an R&R for a paper in which I use both FtF and IM interviews. I am aware of the literature that talks about the strengths and weaknesses of IM as an interview mode, but one of the reviewers says that IM does not constitute an interview at all, but merely a question/answer session. I want to address this critique adequately. Is anyone familiar with specific articles/books that make this argument and/or push back against it?
Thanks!!
Jenny L. Davis Assistant Professor Department of Sociology & Anthropology James Madison University
email: Davis5JL@jmu.edu Twitter: Jenny_L_Davis Blog: Cyborgology.org _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/