4.6 Article

Participants' views of telephone interviews within a grounded theory study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING
卷 71, 期 12, 页码 2775-2785

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jan.12748

关键词

data collection; grounded theory; nursing research; participant views; qualitative research; telephone interviewing

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim. To offer a unique contribution to the evolving debate around the use of the telephone during semistructured interview by drawing on interviewees' reflections on telephone interview during a grounded theory study. Background. The accepted norm for qualitative interviews is to conduct them face-to-face. It is typical to consider collecting qualitative data via telephone only when face-to-face interview is not possible. During a grounded theory study, exploring users' experiences with overnight mask ventilation for sleep apnoea, the authors selected the telephone to conduct interviews. This article reports participants' views on semistructured interview by telephone. Design. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted on data pertaining to the use of the telephone interview in a grounded theory study. Methods. The data were collected during 4 months of 2011 and 6 months in 2014. The article presents an inductive thematic analysis of sixteen participants' opinions about telephone interviewing and discusses these in relation to existing literature reporting the use of telephone interviews in grounded theory studies. Findings. Overall, participants reported a positive experience of telephone interviewing. From each participants reports we identified four themes from the data: being 'phone savvy; concentrating on voice instead of your face; easy rapport; and not being judged or feeling inhibited. Conclusion. By drawing on these data, we argue that the telephone as a data collection tool in grounded theory research and other qualitative methodologies need not be relegated to second best status. Rather, researchers can consider telephone interview a valuable first choice option.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据