essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ELECTRONIC INTERVIEWS–––––––––– 31the reduction in distractions, leading to increased reflexivity. Indeed it has been suggested thatthe need to express emotions explicitly in electronic communication may itself lead toheightened self-awareness (Joinson, 2001). This potential increase in reflexivity, for both partiesinvolved, may be considered to be a very positive aspect of the medium for some socialconstructionists because it makes the socially constructed nature of ‘reality’ more transparent.This temporal and spatial distancing also means contextual information is lost. We do notknow, in many cases, where the person was when they replied, and, unless they tell us, whatcircumstances they are in, or what mood. In organizational research this may mean we do notunderstand the organization, culture, climate, structure, or where this person ‘fits in’. Thesemay or may not be important depending on the research question, and it could be argued thatthey are aspects often ignored in research anyway (Johns, 2001). We suggest, therefore, thatthis is not entirely an issue belonging to electronic interviews, and that the lack of apparentcontext with this medium can be a trigger to put the context back – to investigate this explicitlyboth through the interviews and in other ways.CONCLUSION ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Our research suggests that electronic interviews can be useful within organizational research,particularly in populations where e-mail is an accepted form of communication. Sample issuesthen become less of a problem, and it can be a useful way to overcome some access barriers.One’s epistemological stance will influence one’s views on the strengths and weaknessesof the method, with those researchers who believe that building a rapport is important perhapsfinding this method unsatisfactory. Other researchers, however, have demonstrated that a richexchange of information is possible using electronic communications, and it may depend verymuch upon the research question and the researcher’s skills in engaging and maintainingparticipants’ interest. Researchers should note Parks and Floyd’s (1996) finding thatrelationships that start on the net rarely stay there. Many net-friends use additional forms ofcommunication and this may be necessary in research also, depending on the depth ofrelationship required for the study. In many studies, one is looking more for a rapport sufficientto sustain the interview process, rather than a long-term relationship, therefore the issue maybe less important. In our view, the greatest advantages of this method may be the increasedreflexivity allowed to all parties and the potential to (re)-negotiate meanings and genuinelyco-construct the research process.The issue of how well one can access meanings with this relatively new mode ofcommunication does require further research. We do not yet understand what impact increasedreflexivity and an oral-text register may have upon the meanings participants offer us in thisform of research. We may need to accept that it can be hazardous to aim for a real-life ‘truth’with any method, but that perhaps we can learn about a changing symbolic universe(Paccagnella, 1997) within organizations. The emphasis may need to be on awareness of thepossibility for misunderstanding, the impact of reduced organizational and interactional contextand the implications of the electronic context. We may need to be more aware of the linksbetween our research findings, personal identity, and broader social changes epitomized in thismode of communication, which empties out time and space and offers new mechanisms ofsymbolic tokens (Giddens, 1991), perhaps changing the very ‘object’ of research.In future, technological advances, such as broadband and voice-based e-mail