No abstract

Qualitative research is an increasingly popular research approach for tackling the evolving complexity of social issues. With this rise in use, methods of qualitative data collection are becoming highly diverse, moving away from conventional approaches and welcoming more innovative and creative methods of data collection in a quest to produce critically and theoretically engaged new knowledge. Although traditional face-to-face interviews remain a compelling and popular means, modern innovative technology-based interviewing, such as videoconference interviews, can play a pivotal role in qualitative research. This article argues that this approach is pragmatic because video conferencing interviews are relatively affordable for research teams and, for many research participants, they are more accessible than face-to-face interviews. On the other hand, it provides a unique opportunity for researchers and participants by compressing the time-space divide, facilitating safety, reducing travel-related expenses, accessing transnational participants, maintaining social distance, and protecting personal space and privacy. Yet, this article also argues that videoconferencing can be dogged by practical challenges that might conflict with the holistic quality of qualitative research, such as dropped calls and loss of intimacy compared to traditional in-person interviews. This article presents the experiences of a young researcher, who reflects on how and why he conducted Skype interviews in his research. The article concludes that, despite the relative merits and demerits, videoconference interviews can be a useful supplement or replacement for traditional face-to-face interviews. However, more research is needed to gain a robust understanding of how this type of interview meets basic assumptions about the quality of interviews and affects the overall rigor of qualitative research.

Although social constructionism (SC) and Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) are well established constructionist analytical methods, this article propose that Foucauldian discourse analysis is more useful for qualitative data analysis as it examines social legitimacy. While the SC is able to illuminate how the “meaning” of our social action is constructed through our everyday interaction in socio-cultural and political contexts, questions emerge that are beyond the scope of the SC. These questions are concerned with understanding how the construction of “meaning” is connected to the power imbalance in our society, as well as how a particular version of reality comes to us as truth, having excluded other versions. Moreover, SC does not distinguish between successful and unsuccessful/marginalized claims. This article reflects on how using FDA addresses weaknesses in SC when used in qualitative data analysis, using specific examples from different literature.