Online Interview Shocks: Reflecting on Power Relations in Online Qualitative Interviews

Abstract

The use of online camera-based interviews (OCBI) in qualitative studies is increasing. While recent studies have addressed the benefits and limitations of this method, scholarship still lacks an understanding of it beyond the technicalities. The present study explores how the online setting shapes power relations in qualitative OCBI. The data includes 52 OCBI that were conducted in two different qualitative studies. By applying the concept of interview shocks to the analysis, we gained a deep understanding of how surprising incidents and unexpected moments that occurred during the interviews revealed the role online settings play in shaping the power relations between interviewers and interviewees in OCBI. We identified three types of online interview shocks: the shocking use of the camera, the shocking presence of others during the interview, and the shocking body dispositions in online interviews. The findings demonstrate the different ways that both interviewers and interviewees use the online setting functionalities, or the affordances of OCBI, to position and negotiate their social-cultural-political stand within the interview. Furthermore, the findings uncover the socio-cultural-political context within which the power relations were shaped in OCBI. Thus, we argue that the online setting is yet another aspect that interacts dynamically with the interviewers’ and interviewees’ social locations in shaping the power relations in OCBI. We conclude by highlighting the importance of further studying the qualities of OCBI as a distinct qualitative method that is valid even when other options are available.

Keywords

online interviews power relations interview shocks affordances

Introduction

The use of online interviews is expanding in all fields of the social sciences (Lee et al., 2017), particularly since the outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020 and the social distancing that it forced. Synchronous online camera-based interviewing is an accessible and valuable method that has many advantages: it is cost and time effective; it allows scholars the opportunity to conduct transnational studies without travelling; it ensures anonymity easily and grants interviewees freedom to resume their participation at any given time (Archibald et al., 2019; Gray et al., 2020; O’Connor & Madge, 2017). However, technological and logistical considerations (such as the lack of a stable and reliable internet connection) can prevent interviewees from participating, and ethical issues may arise in terms of privacy and information security due to cloud recordings (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014).

Moving beyond a discussion on the practicalities and technicalities of online camera-based interviews (OCBI), some studies suggest that meeting interviewees in a setting of their choice and in which they feel most comfortable, as well as getting a glimpse of their personal lives through the camera, enhances the sense of intimacy (Cin et al., 2021; Howlett, 2022). The online setting provides interviewees with greater agency, creating more symmetrical power relations (Hanna & Mwale, 2017), and the informality of the online setting nurtures a sense of ease and closeness (Weller, 2017). Nonetheless, studies suggest that the online setting can make it harder to establish rapport and to form intimate interview relationships (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014) and that it can undermine the interviewers’ ability to foster emotional connection and engage in deep listening to body cues (Hart, 2021). OCBI interviews often feature the interviewers and the interviewees looking directly at each other, and such intense eye contact can be uncomfortable, making silences difficult to manage (Engward et al., 2022). Furthermore, the inability to share a range of senses (such as touch and smell) can be disruptive to rapport building (Adams-Hutcheson & Longhurst, 2017). Hence, the online setting appears to shape the interview dynamics—and more specifically the power relations between interviewers and interviewees—in different and contradicting ways.

Power relations are a given construct in qualitative interviews. They are “formed by active subjects with different agendas, different social horizons, and different stories to tell” (Bengtsson & Fynbo, 2018, p. 33). As such, power relations play a crucial role in shaping the dynamics and the atmosphere in qualitative interviews (Karnieli-Miller et al., 2009), and they impact the process and outcomes of knowledge production in qualitative studies (Ben-Ari & Enosh, 2012). Therefore, researchers must be aware of them and explore their role in both the conduct of the interviews and the analysis of the study’s findings (Herzog, 2005).

The present study is based on the authors’ similar experiences of confusion from unexpected power relations in OCBI. Our initial reflection revealed unexpected power dynamics that manifested in surprising moments or incidents that we remained puzzled about. We therefore applied the concept of interview shocks (Sands & Krumer-Nevo, 2006) to analyze power relations in OCBI. The present study explores power relations in (a) cross socio-cultural online interviews with Israeli women journalists who belong to social minority groups, and (b) cross-gender interviews with Israeli men who pay for sex.

The following review focuses on power relations in qualitative (face-to-face) interviews, particularly when interviewers and interviewees come from different social backgrounds, as well as the concept of interview shocks that guided our analysis.

Power Relations in Qualitative Interviews

The very fact that interviewers arrive to the interview as experts who subject the interviewees to questions and study creates an imbalanced starting point in qualitative interviews (Harding, 1991). However, the powerful position of the interviewers is not exclusive, as interviewees can refuse to be interviewed or to answer certain questions, can withhold information, and can oppose interviewer’s interpretations (Kvale, 2006). Furthermore, when interviewers and interviewees come from different social positions, the web of power relations gets more complicated, as the complex social composites that structure people’s lives penetrate the interview (Griffin, 2016; Vähäsantanen & Saarinen, 2013). Namely, the interviewers’ and the interviewees’ intersectional positions/identities play a dominant role in building rapport, generating data, and analyzing it, particularly in qualitative interviews across social positions (Khan & MacEachen, 2022).

Indeed, intersectional theory (Crenshaw, 1991) suggests that a whole range of factors, including gender, class, age, sexual identity, ethnicity, and other social positions/locations all intersect to structure human interactions in different and unpredictable ways. They play a crucial part in the knowledge production process and therefore must be part of the analysis process (Herzog, 2005). In shaping the power relations in interviews across social positions, certain factors matter more in some contexts than in others, and the same social position can be both powerful and powerless in different interview contexts (Vähäsantanen & Saarinen, 2013). Interviewing across gender, for example, can have more significant meaning in conservative cultures where patriarchal norms are dominant than in liberal social contexts. Furthermore, the complex web of power relations is shaped differently depending on structural as well as specific factors that often can only be understood in retrospect (Griffin, 2016). Thus, in the present study we critically reflect on the shocking moments and incidents in which unexpected and surprising dynamics occurred in an attempt to untangle the complicated web of intersecting factors that shape the power relations in the OCBI conducted (Pillow, 2003).

Interview Shocks

The concept of interview shocks refers to the common experience qualitative interviewers often share of feeling emotionally overwhelmed by unexpected occurrences during qualitative interviews. It describes “the interviewer’s emotional-cognitive reaction to an encounter in which her implicit expectations are disrupted” (Sands & Krumer-Nevo, 2006, p. 952). The conceptualization of interview shocks goes beyond the personal emotional realm; interview shocks reflect a clash between different interpretations held by interviewers and interviewees who occupy diverse power positions (Sands & Krumer-Nevo, 2006). The disruption of the interviewer’s expectation or the experience of being shocked does not suggest that the interview has “gone wrong.” Rather, as Watson (2009) suggests, interview shocks create opportunities or gaps in which difference pushes the interviewer out of complacent state of assumed empathic understanding. Namely, it is an analytic tool that helps qualitative interviewers recognize troubling moments of discomfort, distance, and difference, contextualize them within the social, cultural, and political situation, and interpret them without Othering the interviewees (Krumer-Nevo & Sidi, 2012). We found this concept to be analytically productive in capturing essential aspects of the role that the online setting plays in shaping the power relations in the OCBI we conduct.

Method

This is a qualitative interpretive study (Denzin, 2001) that focuses on capturing how the online setting shapes the power relations in OCBI. Through critical reflexive observation (Pillow, 2003), we analyze the data of two different online qualitative studies. We will briefly describe the data collection processes in the original studies, followed by a discussion of the data-analysis procedure in the present study.

Data Collection

The data collection in both of the original studies was designed to include face-to-face qualitative interviews. However, the outbreak of Covid-19 forced the authors to conduct OCBI instead.

Study 1

The first study is an ongoing study that focuses on the identity construction processes of Israeli men who pay for sex. Six of the 38 interviews were online interviews (conducted through Skype or Zoom). The following information regards only the online interviews.

The age range of the participants was 30–53. The participants were of Jewish secular background, and, except for one participant who was unemployed, they all worked in jobs that require vocational training. All of the participants were regularly paying for sex in varied settings: for example, street-based, parlors, and strip clubs. The interviews usually lasted about an hour. In terms of location, five participants were interviewed from their home and one participant was interviewed from his office. The interviewer (author A) conducted all six interviews from her home. The interviews were conducted in 2020—a transformative year in the legal status of Israeli men who pay for sex. The Prohibition on Prostitution Consumption Law, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services and imposes an administrative fine on offenders, came into effect as of July 2020 in the midst of the data collection. Thus, it is likely that during this period, Israeli men who pay for sex became more concerned about being judged, stigmatized, and eventually criminalized.

The interviews were conducted by the first author, a cisgender woman, who at the time was in her early 30s and a graduate student. She had several years of experience in interviewing men who pay for sex and studying the sex industry, and she had already conducted face-to-face interviews with most of the interviewees prior to the online interviews. Therefore, her previous acquaintance with the interviewees provided a certain sense of confidence, yet she was also insecure as a novice scholar who had no experience in conducting online interviews.

Study 2

Taking an intersectional perspective, the second study focused on the work experiences of women journalists from social minority groups in Israel who contend with intersected exclusions: national, racial, cultural, and gendered. It was a wide-ranging study that included over 60 interviews, of which 46 were virtual. The present study analyzes these latter interviews.

The age range of participants (of the virtual interviews) was 25–65 and their journalistic experience ranged from 1 year to 36 years. They worked in a variety of news organizations: newspapers, radio, television, and online channels. In terms of social background, 24 participants were Palestinians living in Israel, 16 participants were post-Soviets who resettled in Israel in the 1990s, and 6 were Ultra-orthodox “Haredi” Jewish. The interviews were conducted via Zoom during 2020–2021. The interviewer (author B) conducted all interviews from her home, while the participants were interviewed mostly from home and occasionally from their office at work. The interviews lasted between 1 and 2.5 hr and were held mostly in Hebrew since almost all interviewees possessed excellent Hebrew. Most interviewees were enthusiastic about the project and were eager to talk about their professional trajectories and themselves.

The second author, an Israeli-born Jewish Ashkenazi woman in her 50s, is an experienced qualitative interviewer. As women journalists are professional women and often assertive, eloquent, and experienced with interviewing, the built-in expected power relations were less salient. Moreover, the interviewees’ professional experience of communicating through the Zoom platform in their everyday work routines through the lockdown supported their sense of confidence and control during the interviews, whereas the interviewer felt somewhat insecure in certain interviews due to her lack of experience in conducting online research interviews.

Data Analysis

The analysis of the present study included 52 interviews that were recorded and transcribed verbatim and the reflective research notes that each interviewer recorded or wrote immediately following the interview or following its transcription. These notes documented the non-verbal communication in the interviews, such as gestures, body language, and expressions, as well as the interviewer’s thoughts and feelings throughout the interaction with the interviewees, from the initial contact to well after the interview was transcribed. Hence, the notes consisted rich and meaningful non-discursive data that was central to the analysis process.

The data analysis followed the steps proposed by Denzin (2001). After critically reviewing the literature on power relations in online interviews, we repeatedly read the transcripts of the interviews and the reflective research notes to gain an overall impression of how the online setting shaped the interviewer-interviewee dynamics. We then hand-coded them to identify themes related to the dynamics in the interview and concentrated on experiences related particularly to the power relations. As aforementioned, we found that the online setting yielded numerous surprising and unexpected events that shaped the atmosphere and the power relations. Accordingly, we used the concept of interview shocks (Sands & Krumer-Nevo, 2006) to deepen our understanding of the analysis process.

Throughout the research process, we conducted multiple continual discussions aimed at enriching and deepening our understanding and interpretation of the data, particularly with regard to the non-discursive data. Our joint discussions focused on untangling, interpreting, and thinking through the cues, nuances, gestures and expressions that were essential to shaping the power relations in the interviews. As we come from different disciplines and have varying levels of seniority, the collaborative analysis allowed us to step back from our own investment in the research topic and employ a critical attitude that eventually brought a diversity of perspectives into the analysis (Cornish et al., 2013). In addition, we were able to further explore potential linkages between the inductive themes we have identified and the conceptual framework, and how they both illuminate each another. Thus, these discussions led to a grouping and regrouping of the themes, until we reached a final conceptual framework of three categories of online interview shocks. Although the virtual setting was initially enforced due to the outbreak of Covid-19, we did not find that the global pandemic played a dominant contextual role in shaping the power relations in the interviews.

The analysis necessitated a critical reflexive observation of the interviewers’ positionality in the interviews (Macbeth, 2001). This further pointed to the centrality of the socio-cultural positions of the interviewer and the interviewees in shaping the power relations in the online interviews. We used Pillow’s (2003) practice of uncomfortable reflexivity, which continuously challenges, questions, and interrogates the truthfulness of the data and provides multiple and unfamiliar tellings about the “messy,” often unsuccessful, and uncomfortable reality of doing engaged qualitative research. Interpreting the data through the practice of uncomfortable reflexivity and the concept of interview shocks facilitated a profound understanding, which was strongly bounded to socio-cultural context, of how the online setting shaped the power relations in the OCBI we conducted.

Ethical Considerations

This study, as well as the original studies for which data was collected, was approved by the authors’ Institutional Review Boards (IRB). All the participants consented to the use of their interviews in the authors’ future research projects. We made efforts to remain as faithful as possible to the original meaning of the participants’ words; however, the participants were informed that the analysis might result in conclusions that were different from the participants’ own interpretations of their narrative. The audio files of the interviews were transcribed in full. All identifying details were omitted from the transcript, and all the names mentioned in the article are pseudonyms. We told the participants that they could terminate their participation at any time or refuse to answer certain questions without any adverse consequences, and we held a debriefing conversation at the end of each interview.

Findings

The findings focus on the unique manifestations of power relations in OCBI. The power dynamics, which are common in face-to-face qualitative interviews, and the digital attributes intertwined as demonstrated in three central online interview shocks: the shocking use of the camera, the shocking presence of others during the interview, and the shocking body dispositions in online interviews.

The Shocking Use of the Camera

The first type of online interview shock that we identified was the surprising and often unexpected use of the camera. As previously suggested, the freedom to choose the setting of the interview often makes OCBI more comfortable for interviewees and grants them a greater sense of power and control (Deakin & Wakefield, 2014). In this way, the online setting can potentially create more balanced power relations between interviewers and interviewees (Hanna, 2012). We found that interviewees’ ability to manipulate their performance through the camera—by deciding where to locate the camera, how to appear within the frame, and even if and when to turn the camera on—enhanced their position of power in the interviews. At the same time, interviewees sometimes used the camera in unusual and unexpected ways that shocked the interviewers. Contextualizing these shocks yielded a deeper understanding of these dynamics and how they shaped the power relations.

For example, at the beginning of author A’s interview with Lior (about his experiences in paying for sex), she was surprised to realize that he decided not to turn his camera on. Although the interview was scheduled as a video meeting, Lior was reluctant to be exposed and he chose to remain unseen. The online setting provided Lior the sense of control and confidence to (dis)appear as he wished. Moreover, the online setting facilitated the original opportunity for Lior to participate in the study, as he declined the invitation to participate in a face-to-face interview due to the fear of being exposed and shamed—a fear that men who pay for sex often experience (Lahav-raz et al., 2023).

Nonetheless, Lior’s deactivated camera caught the interviewer off-guard and left her confused. While she understood and respected Lior’s choice, she felt she was “losing grip” of the interview and was uncomfortable with the one-sided video. In a way, the shock of Lior’s decision transformed into the interviewer’s own shock in her reaction to it and her difficulty around being less in control. This indicates that although she hoped to create a more balanced power relationship with interviewees, she was in fact ambivalent—unconsciously—toward the possibility of waiving her powerful position, particularly in the context of the challenges of being a novice woman scholar interviewing men about their controversial sexual experiences (Prior & Peled, 2022).

Another example of camera-related interview shock occurred in author B’s interview with Hadeel, a Druze woman living in the Galilee region.¹ In the course of the interview, Hadeel gave author B a tour of her house using the computer’s camera. She proudly showed her wide open and well-designed house and focused particularly on the porch, which offered a beautiful view. The tour occurred at the peak of the interview, after rapport had been established and the interviewer felt she was beginning to have a sense of who Hadeel was. The unexpected virtual tour surprised author B and resulted in a shift in the natural flow of the interview.

Author B’s shock at the tour was subtle, and it did not undermine her confidence in completing the interview, yet it did require some adjustments. Contextualizing the tour and the resulting shock, we suggest that Hadeel’s virtual tour can be seen as a performance of her material and cultural assets, particularly within her interaction as a woman belonging to the Israeli-Druze minority group² with a Jewish interviewer. Within the intersecting identities that she possessed (Crenshaw, 1991), Hadeel seemed eager to reclaim her cultural capital and to object to the cultural marginalization she often experienced. Thus, inviting author B to tour her home was a symbolic gesture that rectified the imbalanced power relations between Hadeel and author B (Herzog, 2005). The online setting denied Hadeel the opportunity to present cultural assets that author B would have been exposed to if the interview had been conducted at Hadeel’s home. Therefore, we suggest that the tour reflected Hadeel’s attempt to socially position her cultural power within the power relations between her and an Israeli, Jewish, white, academic, woman interviewer.

Furthermore, unlike author A’s sense of loss of control, author B’s more subtle shock suggests that while she did not expect a tour in the interview, she was comfortable with the interviewee’s display of power. Being an experienced feminist scholar who studies less controversial topics (compared with author A) made author B more confident, and she welcomed and even encouraged the displays of power of interviewees in her study. Hence, her emotional reaction to the shocks shifted from a stressful and threatened shock to a welcome and subtle sense of surprise. All types of shocks can potentially provide new insights about the power relations. We suggest that the extent and the nature of the shock reflect aspects of the socio-cultural context that shape the power relations between interviewers and interviewees. Therefore, scholars should reflect on the uncomfortable and complicated (Pillow, 2003), as well as delicate and hard-to-recognize, dynamics that take place during OCBI.

The Shocking Presence of Others During the Online Interview

The second type of interview shock we identified is the interviewers’ shock at the unexpected presence of others during a “private” OCBI. To facilitate an intimate atmosphere where interviewees can narrate their stories openly and honestly, qualitative interviews are usually private. However, the online setting challenges this norm because interviewees are free to determine the conditions for the interview, specifically, their own location and the extent of privacy. Furthermore, interviewers might not be aware of others’ present during the interview since they are not in the same physical space as the interviewees. Discovering that others were present during the interview was found to be a shock for the interviewers in the present study, and contextualizing this type of shock uncovered meaningful aspects of the social context that shaped the power relations in these interviews.

During author B’s interview with Salma, a Bedouin woman journalist living in a small town in the Nagev region,³ Salma was sitting outside her townhouse where the internet connection was stable. Quite early in the interview, Salma told author B that she had told her husband she was asked to participate in the study. A few minutes later, Salma noticed that her husband was approaching, and though she quickly “warned” author B, the latter was shocked when he arrived, stood in front of the camera, introduced himself, and “took over” the conversation. He told author B that he checked her background prior to the interview, implying that he would not have allowed Salma to participate if he had had a bad impression of author B. He then talked for over 20 min about the troubling conditions of Bedouin people in the Nagev and the powerlessness of the local authorities to change it. While he was talking, Salma set quietly next to him, outside the camera’s frame.

Author B sympathized with Salma’s husbands’ urge to speak out, recognizing that he belongs to an oppressed national and cultural minority group (Aburabia-Queder, 2017) in the Israeli “ethnic democracy,” which discriminates against non-Jewish citizens in terms of their socioeconomic, civil, and political rights (Smooha, 2017). Yet, despite her sympathy for Salma’s husband, author B was shocked and concerned. She was worried that she lost the opportunity to hear Salma’s story and did not know how to handle the husband’s “highjacking” of the interview. Eventually, Salma’s husband turned the camera over to Salma and entered the house. The interview continued without either of the parties directly addressing the “interruption.” While author B did not feel she could verbalize the event in real-time, she felt that both she and Salma silently understood that these were the implicit rules within which the interview took place (Lindlof & Taylor, 2017). Author B felt that by accepting the shocking situation and cooperating with Salma’s husband, she gave Salma confidence and laid the groundwork for a mutually gratifying conversation.

Another, more shocking, example of the presence of another person within the interview took place during author B’s online interview with Rivka, an ultra-Orthodox woman journalist. Author B felt that Rivka was being restrained in narrating an event in her work experience, specifically, her professional decision to leave a certain position. Half an hour after the interview ended, Rivka unexpectedly called author B and confessed, though she did not apologize, that her husband was present during the interview and therefore she was unable to speak freely. This confession completely surprised author B, who was shocked to learn that someone else heard what she considered to be a private conversation. Rivka then insisted on continuing the interview, as she wanted to complete her story and elaborate on the topic she had not mentioned earlier, in the presence of her husband.

Rivka’s confession created a sense of great closeness, and it helped author B to contextualize Rivka’s original, fragmented narrative. Furthermore, the shocking situation explicitly exemplified the unique constraints ultra-Orthodox women are often subjected to. On the one hand, telling her husband she wanted to be interviewed privately could have been considered disrespectful within the strict religious context of Rivka’s life (Layosh, 2014). On the other hand, being a strong and independent woman, Rivka was determined to create the conditions for the privacy she needed to narrate her story freely.

Contextualizing both examples shows that while the Bedouin and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish minorities have experienced major socio-cultural changes that increase women’s opportunities for personal and professional development, women in these societies are still often subjected to patriarchal family structure (Aburabia-Queder, 2017; Neriya-Ben Shahar, 2019). Thus, it demonstrates how intersecting social locations operate together to shape the lived experience of marginalized women (Crenshaw, 1991). Both examples also show how marginalized women find ways to operate inside the restrictive boundaries of their culture. Salma and Rivka acted cautiously and respected the cultural norms they live in without giving up their subjectivity, their agency, and the opportunity to narrate their own story (Gubrium & Holstein, 2002). Hence, the shock of the presence of others challenged the assumptions that obedience/empowerment and surveillance/independence are dichotomies (Aburabia-Queder, 2017; El-Or, 1994; Neriya-Ben Shahar, 2019) by uncovering the co-existence of these features in the lives of marginalized individuals.

The Shocking Body Dispositions and Appearances

The third type of online interview shock we identified concerned interviewees’ unexpected body dispositions and appearances. The online setting is often characterized as less formal; interviewees are free to choose the locations of the interview and they usually feel less obligated to follow formal dress codes (Gray et al., 2020). The freedom to be interviewed on their own terms and in an informal setting can potentially give the interviewees a greater sense of power. Nonetheless, we found that informal body dispositions and appearances can surprise and discomfort interviewers.

For example, during her interview with Efi, a man who pays for sex, author A found that the inability to “zoom out” and see the interviewee’s whole body elicited a sense of discomfort. She later wrote in her research notes:

It looked like he was sitting with his legs spread wide open, and every few minutes he lifted his knee and I could see his inner thigh. I saw his bare legs and I couldn’t help but wonder—is he wearing anything? Is he talking to me in his underwear? Is he naked? He could have been totally naked and I wouldn’t even know.

In the absence of full, bodily presence, author A was shocked and troubled by Efi’s appearance. In the context of interviewing Efi about his sex life, and particularly his controversial experiences with sex workers, the thought of him in his underwear or completely naked was stressful for author A. Although Efi gave no indication he would do such a thing, author A feared the possibility that, at any given moment, he would flash himself. She felt the online setting made it much easier for him to do so, and this undermined her ability to focus. Considering author A’s shock in the context of women’s fear of cyber gender-related harassments (Citron, 2009) reveals the online setting to be another important factor that shapes the already complicated power relations between women interviewers and men interviewees in interviews on controversial sexual behavior (Prior & Peled, 2022).

Furthermore, we also identified this type of online body appearance-related shock in cross-cultural interviews. Author B’s online interview with Maha, a young Israeli-Palestinian journalist, began with Maha’s camera turned off. At first, author B assumed Maha was having technical problems. However, Maha made it clear she was not prepared for a video talk. Author B felt uncomfortable, but gently asked Maha to turn on the camera so they would be able to see each other and have a more personal conversation. Author B also reassured Maha that only the audio recording would be saved. Nonetheless, Maha declined to turn the camera on, and she asked author B if she could return in 10 min because she needed time “to prepare” herself. Author B was confused, and it was only when they restarted and Maha appeared wearing her hijab that the interview actually began.

Author B was confused and unsure how to address Maha’s behavior. On the one hand, she perceived Maha’s act of suspending the interview altogether and turning the camera on only after she was wearing the Hijab to be a political statement (Mizel, 2020), intended to emphasize Maha’s position within complex Israeli-Palestinian relations. On the other hand, author B considered the possibility that while she perceived the online setting to be private and intimate, perhaps Maha perceived it as public. If this was the case, then for Maha, wearing Hijab while in public is simply a daily routine. Author B was afraid of misinterpreting Maha’s intentions, and therefore she avoided any direct references to the “misunderstanding”. This created a tense atmosphere at the beginning of the interview and challenged the building of rapport. Contextualizing this event in the Israeli socio-political context uncovers the complexity of cross-positional OCBI, which can bring new and unexpected dilemmas and challenges to interviewers.

Discussion

The Covid-19 pandemic has stimulated the use of video-conferencing technologies (Vidolov, 2022) in a variety realms of life: family, work, learning, and research (Oliffe et al., 2021; Owens, 2022). While some scholars were initially reluctant to conduct research on digital platforms, these setting quickly became dominant for qualitative interview-based studies (Wahl-Jorgensen, 2021). Accordingly, the present study explored the methodological meanings of OCBI beyond the techno-centric ones. The findings focused on the unique manifestations of power dynamics in an online setting. We argue that the power relations in the present study were shaped by the interactions between the qualitative interview method, the socio-cultural background of the interviewers and the interviewees, the research topic, and the digital attributes. Specifically, we used the concept of interview shocks (Sands & Krumer-Nevo, 2006) to investigate the socio-cultural meanings of the dynamic, unexpected, and often surprising incidents we have experienced in the OCBI we conducted, and how these meanings illuminate the power relations formed in these interviews.

The findings demonstrate that the intensity of interview shocks varies: these shocks can be dramatic and explicit moments of surprise, or nuanced, mild, and implicit incidents. Nonetheless, we found that all types of interview shocks may indicate meaningful aspects of the power relations between interviewers and interviewees, thus suggesting the need for a broad and inclusive definition of the concept. Moreover, the findings show that interview shocks do not point to moments of failure or to unsuccessful attempts to establish rapport or build intimacy. Rather, these moments should be seen as opportunities to deepen the understanding of the dynamics of power negotiations, and of distance and closeness, within qualitative interviews. This supports Pillow’s (2003) call for uncomfortable reflexivity that focuses on the “messy” experiences, and the “mistakes” that interviewers make.

The findings also demonstrate that both interviewers and interviewees use the functionalities and possibilities of the online setting in different ways when negotiating their social-political position within OCBI. For example, while some interviewees used the camera to conceal their identity, distance themselves, or resist the interviewer, others used it to expose themselves and to bond with the interviewer. This illustrates the concept of affordances in qualitative zoom interviews (Vidolov, 2022; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2021; Zhao & Li, 2023), and supports the contention that users are in constant negotiation with the tools and functionalities presented to them in digital spaces. We suggest that the outcomes of digital communication often depend on how technologies are being used, which supports the argument that the technologies and human users co-constitute each other in the process (Vidolov, 2022). In the context of OCBI, we claim that affordances in OCBI are used differently by the interviewers and the interviewees to construct and shape the complex web of power relations of their interaction. We therefore suggest that future studies should apply the theoretical framework of intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1991) to further explore how social locations and social-political circumstances shape interviewers and interviewees’ use of certain digital tools in the construction of OCBI power relations.

Methodologically, our mutual process of reflecting on each other’s interview shocks appears to be fruitful in exploring the interview power relations: it helped us avoid our blind spots and increased the visibility of our biases. We suggest that this close reflection on each other’s materials is a variation of peer debriefing (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Our reflexive analytical sessions allowed us to explore aspects of the data collection that might otherwise have remained unseen. Furthermore, our coming from different disciplines enriched our understanding of the data and the analysis process. We therefore call for future transdisciplinary collaborations that will contribute to the overall development of qualitative methods.

To conclude, recent studies on qualitative OCBI compared online interviews with face-to-face interviews, suggesting that online interviews have distinct advantages along with challenges and limitations (Oliffe et al., 2021; Wahl-Jorgensen, 2021). Several studies have even attempted to determine which mode is better (Hyde & Rouse, 2023). In contrast, we argue that the two practices should not be positioned against each other. The online setting is a valuable research tool not only in times of need, and the findings of our study point to the unique qualities of this setting and how it shapes power relations. Thus, future studies should engage more deeply with the affordances of OCBI and how interviewers and interviewees use them to negotiate power relations as well as other aspects of data collection and analysis.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Israeli Science Foundation (1075/20).

ORCID iD

Ayelet Prior

Notes

References

Aburabia-Queder

(2017). The emergence of a class identity: Naqab Palestinian professional women. Magnes Press.

Adams-Hutcheson

Longhurst

(2017). ‘At least in person there would have been a cup of tea’: Interviewing via Skype. Area, 49(2), 148–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12306

Archibald

M. M.

Ambagtsheer

R. C.

Casey

M. G.

Lawless

(2019). Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: Perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919874596

Avivi

(2000). The Druze in Israel and their holy places. Ariel. (Hebrew).

Ben-Ari

Enosh

(2012). Power relations and reciprocity: Dialectics of knowledge construction. Qualitative Health Research, 23(3), 422–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732312470030

Bengtsson

T. T.

Fynbo

(2018). Analysing the significance of silence in qualitative interviewing: Questioning and shifting power relations. Qualitative Research, 18(1), 19–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117694220

Cin

F. M.

Madge

Long

Breines

Dalu

M. T. B.

(2021). Transnational online research: Recognising multiple contexts in Skype-to-phone interviews. Qualitative Research, 23(6), 146879412110248. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211024824

Citron

D. K.

(2009). Law’s expressive value in combating cyber gender harassment. Michigan Law Review, 108(3), 373–415.

Cornish

Gillespie

Zittoun

(2013). Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. ‏In Flick

(Ed.), The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 79–93). Sage.

10.

Crenshaw

K. W.

(1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1300. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

11.

Deakin

Wakefield

(2014). Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD researchers. Qualitative Research, 14(5), 603–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794113488126

12.

Denzin

N. K.

(2001). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

13.

El-Or

(1994). Educated and ignorant: Ultraorthodox Jewish women and their world. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

14.

Engward

Goldspink

Iancu

Kersey

Wood

(2022). Togetherness in separation: Practical considerations for doing remote qualitative interviews ethically. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21, 160940692110732. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211073212

15.

Gray

L. M.

Wong-Wylie

Rempel

G. R.

Cook

(2020). Expanding qualitative research interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. Qualitative Report, 25(5), 1292–1301. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2020.4212

16.

Griffin

(2016). Interviewing as negotiation. In Griffin

(Ed.), Cross-cultural interviewing: Feminist experiences and reflections (pp. 15–29). Routladge.

17.

Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

(2002). From the individual interview to the interview society. In Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 3–32). Sage.

18.

Halabi

(2006). Citizens of equal duties: Druze identity and the Jewish state. Hakibbutz Hameuchad. (Hebrew).

19.

Hanna

(2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: A research note. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 239–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111426607

20.

Hanna

Mwale

(2017). “I’m not with you, yet I am…”. Virtual face-to-face interviews. In Braun

Gray

(Eds.), Collecting qualitative data. A practical guide to textual, media and virtual techniques (pp. 256–274). Cambridge University Press.

21.

Harding

(1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press.

22.

Hart

(2021). COVID times make ‘deep listening’ explicit: Changing the space between interviewer and participant. Qualitative Research, 23(5), 146879412110277. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941211027780

23.

Herzog

(2005). On home turf: Interview location and its social meaning. Qualitative Sociology, 28(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-2629-8

24.

Howlett

(2022). Looking at the ‘field’ through a Zoom lens: Methodological reflections on conducting online research during a global pandemic. Qualitative Research, 22(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794120985691

25.

Hyde

Rouse

(2023). What is it like to experience the other in an online interview? Using phenomenology to explore the online encounter of the other. Qualitative Inquiry, 29(7), 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004221144071

26.

Karnieli-Miller

Strier

Pessach

(2009). Power relations in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 19(2), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732308329306

27.

Khan

T. H.

MacEachen

(2022). An alternative method of interviewing: Critical reflections on videoconference interviews for qualitative data collection. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 21(January-December), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221090063

28.

Krumer-Nevo

Sidi

(2012). Writing against othering. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800411433546

29.

Kvale

(2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 480–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406286235

30.

Lahav-raz

Prior

Peled

(2023). The question of moral worth in a controversial market: Moral justification regimes and boundary work among Israeli men who pay for sex abroad. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2023.2175346

31.

Layosh

(2014). Women of the threshold: Orthodox women in front of a modern change. Resling. (Hebrew).

32.

Lee

R. M.

Fielding

N. G.

Blank

(2017). Online research nethods in the social sciences: An editorial introduction and invitation. In Fielding

N. G.

Lee

R. M.

Blank

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of online research methods. Sage Publications.

33.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.

34.

Lindlof

T. R.

Taylor

B. C.

(2017). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage Publications.

35.

Macbeth

(2001). On “Reflexivity” in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(1), 35–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700103

36.

Mizel

(2020). The voice of the Hijab: Perspectives towards wearing the Hijab by a sample of Palestinian female university students in Israel. Athens Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.30958/ajss.7-4-2

37.

Neriya-Ben Shahar

(2019). For We ascend in holiness and do not descend.” Jewish ultra-Orthodox women’s agency through their discourse about media. Journal of Modern Jewish Studies, 18(2), 212–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725886.2019.1594076

38.

O’Connor

Madge

(2017). Online interviewing. In Fielding

N. G.

Lee

R. M.

Blank

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of online research methods (2nd ed., pp. 416–434). Sage Publications.

39.

Oliffe

J. L.

Kelly

M. T.

Gonzalez Montaner

Yu Ko

W. F.

(2021). Zoom interviews: Benefits and concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(January-December), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211053522

40.

Owens

L. L.

(2022). An implausible virtual interview: Conversations with a professional research subject. Sociological Methodology, 52(2), 121–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/00811750221106777

41.

Pillow

W. S.

(2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

42.

Prior

Peled

(2022). Gendered power relations in women-to-men interviews on controversial sexual behavior. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 25(3), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2021.1882193

43.

Sands

R. G.

Krumer-Nevo

(2006). Interview shocks and shockwaves. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(5), 950–971. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406288623

44.

Smooha

(2017). Still playing by the rules: Index of Arab-Jewish relations in Israel 2015. Pardes.

45.

Vähäsantanen

Saarinen

(2013). The power dance in the research interview: Manifesting power and powerlessness. Qualitative Research, 13(5), 493–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112451036

46.

Vidolov

(2022). Uncovering the affective affordances of videoconference technologies. Information Technology and People, 35(6), 1782–1803. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-04-2021-0329

47.

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2021). The affordances of interview research on zoom: New intimacies and active listening. Communication, Culture and Critique, 14(2), 373–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcab015

48.

Watson

(2009). The “impossible vanity”: Uses and abuses of empathy in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Research, 9(1), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794108098033

49.

Weller

(2017). Using internet video calls in qualitative (longitudinal) interviews: Some implications for rapport. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1269505

50.

Yiftachel

(2003). Bedouin-Arabs and the Israeli settler state: Land policies and indigenous resistance. In Champagne

Abu-Saad

(Eds.), The future of indigenous peoples: Strategies for survival and development (pp. 21–47). University of California Press.

51.

Zhao

(2023). The Affordances of videoconferencing technology for doing interviews with children online: Methodological explorations based on a critical ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778004231165464