This article considers spoken interaction in semi-structured qualitative research interviews, comparing those that are conducted by telephone or face-to-face. It draws upon recent empirical research that illuminated some of the differences that may be observed between these two interview modes. Methodological techniques drawn from Conversation Analysis were used to conduct a systematic and transparent comparison of the interview interactions, focusing on the spoken interactional devices that researcher and interviewee employ in order to pursue and maintain a collaborative and comprehensible dialogue. The article begins with an overview of previous discussion on the interactional effects of the telephone in qualitative interviews. Here, we find that while instructional texts have traditionally advised that the telephone mode is not well-suited to the task of qualitative interviewing – primarily because the lack of face-to-face contact is said to restrict the development of rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter – researchers giving personal accounts of conducting telephone interviews tend to offer more nuanced or critical reflections on the extent to which the lack of visual cues affects the interaction in practice. Empirical findings are then presented on: formulation and completion, clarification and comprehension, acknowledgement, interviewees’ checks on the ‘adequacy’ of their talk, and the duration of interviews. Key findings were that: completion or formulation of interviewee talk by the researcher was more common in face-to-face interviews; interviewee requests for clarification were slightly more common in telephone interviews; vocalized acknowledgements given by the researcher were less frequent in telephone interviews; interviewee checks on the adequacy of their responses were more common in telephone interviews; and telephone interviews tended to be shorter than those conducted face-to-face. The article discusses possible explanations for the findings that emerge alongside consideration of some potential implications.

No abstract

No abstract

The principle of personalisation is widespread across the UK's public sector, but precisely what this means is unclear. A number of theoretical typologies have been proposed but there has been little empirical study of how personalisation is translated into practice on the frontline. We address this gap through analysis of a unique dataset: over 200 audio and video recordings of work-focused interviews in Jobcentre Plus offices. Through detailed analysis of these recordings, we show that personalisation reflects two key dimensions: the substantive (what advisers do) and the procedural (how they do it). We illustrate these dimensions, showing how each represents a continuum, and propose a typology of personalisation in practice, reflecting how the dimensions interact. We conclude with some thoughts on the relevance of our findings for advisory practice in the future under the Coalition government's new Work Programme.

Findings provide further evidence of the financial impact for families of caring for severely disabled children. This study shows how this impact can extend far into the period after death. Findings indicate the need for financial advice and support to families both during the period of care and after bereavement.