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/

Hmmm..... It would be a pretty narrow definition of interviewing that would simply dismiss IM as interviewing. Perhaps the reviewer has an issue with how the interview situation or the interview itself is framed in your paper. Hard to say. I can imagine if a reviewer has a specific conception of interviewing as intensive engagement and somehow interpreted your interviews to be mere question/answer sessions, this could cause the reviewer's reaction, rather than the medium through which the interview was conducted. Again, I have nothing to base this on. I'm just wondering if the reviewer might be asking for something other than simply justifying IM as interviewing. In any case, the citations you mention contain good rationale for using IM as a suitable interviewing format. But I would encourage you to include older sources, rather than assuming that the recent works subsume older texts. These can lend strong support for such methods, not only because they demonstrate to the reader that there is longstanding precedence for such methods, but also because the novelty of the media for interaction forces the authors to articulate many of the strengths and weaknesses of the various media they're communicating with--so there's usually a lot more space devoted to explanation and rationale of the method. You might take a look at the 2009 book by Nalita James and Hugh Busher called "Online Interviewing" (Sage) that goes into great detail about various principles, practices, and complications of online interviewing. They refer to a lot of foundational empirical studies in their book, which gives further support for the strong history of instant messaging (or similar) media for interviewing. Best, annette ***************************************************** Annette N. Markham, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University Guest Professor, Department of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden Affiliate Professor, School of Communication, Loyola University, Chicago amarkham@gmail.com http://markham.internetinquiry.org/ Twitter: annettemarkham On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Jenny Davis <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu> wrote:

Hi Alex,

I am writing for Sociology. I'm aware of several articles that defend the use of Instant Message, and several that point out the weaknesses, but haven't been able to find one that says they are categorically NOT interviews.

Here are some citations I use in the paper:

Traverse, Max. New methods, old problems: A sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. 9:161

Enochsson, Ann-Britt. 2011. “Who Benefits from Synchronous Online Communication?: A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Synchronous Online Interviews with Children.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences: 15-22

Markham, Annette N. 2013. Remix Culture, Remix Methods: Reframing Qualitative Inquiry for Social Media Contexts. In Denzin, N., & Giardina, M (Eds.). Global Dimensions of Qualitative Inquiry. Left Coast Press.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Amy J. Griffin. 2013. “ Internet-Mediated Technologies and Mixed Methods Research: Problems and Prospects. “ Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7(1):43-61.

Beneito-Montagut, Roser. 2011. “Ethnography Goes Online: Towards a User-Centered Methodology to Research Interpersonal Communication on the Internet.” Qualitative Research 11(6):716-735

I could certainly also include some older stuff (like Hine's virtual ethnography or Miller and Slater's book), but I the more recent stuff pretty much subsumes those texts.

Thanks!!

Jenny

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Leavitt" <alexleavitt@gmail.com> To: "Jenny Davis" <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu> Cc: "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:03:17 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] IM interviews not interviews?

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/ _______________________________________________ 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/

Speaking of older sources re: IM interviewing, here's one: Stieger, S., & Göritz, A. S. (2006). Using instant messaging for Internet-based interviews. *CyberPsychology & Behavior*, *9*(5), 552-559.

From the abstract: "On the basis of self-reports, respondent behavior, and data in the address books, the studies have demonstrated that the risk of receiving false data in IM interviews is small. Not only is the quality of the obtainable data satisfying but the contact rate, response rate, and retention rate as well."

- - - - - Luis E. Hestres Ph.D. candidate | School of Communication | American University More about me at luishestres.com or LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/hestres> | Follow me on Twitter <https://twitter.com/#!/luishestres/> | My SSRN Author page: http://ssrn.com/author=1820222 "Theoretical critiques are like sociopaths: Their aggressive drives are rarely balanced by constructive instincts." -- From "Caught in a Winding, Snarling Vine: The Structural Bias of Political Process Theory" by Jeff Goodwin and James M. Jasper, Sociological Forum 14(1), 1999 On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:50 PM, John Campbell <johncampbellphd@gmail.com>wrote:

Hi Jenny,

I would second Annette's comments. And I would also recommend looking at the collection, Internet Inquiry: Conversations About Method (2009) edited by Annette and Nancy Baym. It seems rather odd to me that someone today would not see discussions conducted through IM as valid interviews. It would be interesting to learn the reviewer's position on online inquiry in general.

Best wishes, John Campbell

********************************************************** John Edward Campbell, PhD Assistant Professor Temple University Department of Media Studies and Production School of Media and Communication 219 Tomlinson 2020 North 13th Street Philadelphia, PA 19122 phone: 215-204-1926 "All talk is an act of faith predicated on the future's ability to bring forth the worlds called for." -- John Durham Peters, 1999

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Annette Markham <amarkham@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hmmm..... It would be a pretty narrow definition of interviewing that would simply dismiss IM as interviewing. Perhaps the reviewer has an issue with how the interview situation or the interview itself is framed in your paper. Hard to say. I can imagine if a reviewer has a specific conception of interviewing as intensive engagement and somehow interpreted your interviews to be mere question/answer sessions, this could cause the reviewer's reaction, rather than the medium through which the interview was conducted. Again, I have nothing to base this on. I'm just wondering if the reviewer might be asking for something other than simply justifying IM as interviewing.

In any case, the citations you mention contain good rationale for using IM as a suitable interviewing format. But I would encourage you to include older sources, rather than assuming that the recent works subsume older texts. These can lend strong support for such methods, not only because they demonstrate to the reader that there is longstanding precedence for such methods, but also because the novelty of the media for interaction forces the authors to articulate many of the strengths and weaknesses of the various media they're communicating with--so there's usually a lot more space devoted to explanation and rationale of the method.

You might take a look at the 2009 book by Nalita James and Hugh Busher called "Online Interviewing" (Sage) that goes into great detail about various principles, practices, and complications of online interviewing. They refer to a lot of foundational empirical studies in their book, which gives further support for the strong history of instant messaging (or similar) media for interviewing.

Best,

annette

***************************************************** Annette N. Markham, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Department of Aesthetics & Communication, Aarhus University Guest Professor, Department of Informatics, Umeå University, Sweden Affiliate Professor, School of Communication, Loyola University, Chicago amarkham@gmail.com http://markham.internetinquiry.org/ Twitter: annettemarkham

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Jenny Davis <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu> wrote:

...

Hi Alex,

I am writing for Sociology. I'm aware of several articles that defend the use of Instant Message, and several that point out the weaknesses, but haven't been able to find one that says they are categorically NOT interviews.

Here are some citations I use in the paper:

Traverse, Max. New methods, old problems: A sceptical view of innovation in qualitative research. Qualitative Research. 9:161

Enochsson, Ann-Britt. 2011. “Who Benefits from Synchronous Online Communication?: A Comparison of Face-to-Face and Synchronous Online Interviews with Children.” Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences: 15-22

Markham, Annette N. 2013. Remix Culture, Remix Methods: Reframing Qualitative Inquiry for Social Media Contexts. In Denzin, N., & Giardina, M (Eds.). Global Dimensions of Qualitative Inquiry. Left Coast Press.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene and Amy J. Griffin. 2013. “ Internet-Mediated Technologies and Mixed Methods Research: Problems and Prospects. “ Journal of Mixed Methods Research 7(1):43-61.

Beneito-Montagut, Roser. 2011. “Ethnography Goes Online: Towards a User-Centered Methodology to Research Interpersonal Communication on the Internet.” Qualitative Research 11(6):716-735

I could certainly also include some older stuff (like Hine's virtual ethnography or Miller and Slater's book), but I the more recent stuff pretty much subsumes those texts.

Thanks!!

Jenny

----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Leavitt" <alexleavitt@gmail.com> To: "Jenny Davis" <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu> Cc: "AoIR-L" <air-l@listserv.aoir.org> Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2013 1:03:17 PM Subject: Re: [Air-L] IM interviews not interviews?

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/ _______________________________________________ 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/

_______________________________________________ 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/

_______________________________________________ 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/

In addition to what others have already said: It's hard to say without seeing the detailed critique of the reviewers, but I wouldn't be surprised if what is at the heart of it are differing understandings of synchronicity/asynchronicity in digitally augmented communication. While it doesn't specifically refer to interviews, you might be interested in Erika Darics' work in this area: http://www.academia.edu/2570192/The_blurring_boundaries_between_synchronicit... Best, Johnny. Dr J W Unger Lecturer and Academic Director of Summer Programmes Department of Linguistics and English Language Lancaster University LA1 4YL e-mail: j.unger@lancaster.ac.uk<mailto:j.unger@lancaster.ac.uk> tel: +44 1524 592591 Follow me on Twitter @johnnyunger<http://twitter.com/#!/johnnyunger> On 18 Aug 2013, at 14:46, Jenny Davis <jdavis4@neo.tamu.edu<mailto: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<mailto:Davis5JL@jmu.edu> Twitter: Jenny_L_Davis Blog: Cyborgology.org<http://Cyborgology.org> _______________________________________________ The Air-L@listserv.aoir.org<mailto: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/