The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use

Jamie  Foster  Campbell

doi:10.29333/ajqr/10930

Jamie Foster Campbell ¹ ^*

More Detail

AM J QUALITATIVE RES, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 206-221

https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

OPEN ACCESS 1639 Views 750 Downloads

Download Full Text (PDF)

Abstract

This paper presents a reflexive account of how the use of joint interviews with romantic dyads creates a unique conversational space for people to reflect on relational practices that are often invisible. The contribution this paper seeks to offer is to encourage other qualitative scholars to think critically about the use of joint interviews as a data collection method when studying mediated communication and technology’s place in relational life. Using the data from a larger research project, I argue that with joint interviews, the process of metacommunication inevitably impacts the couple’s behaviors and direct communication at that moment, and potentially after the interview ends. Therefore, it is important for future scholars using joint interviews to include a follow-up interview with the couple to learn more about how their relational communication, especially over mediated channels, transforms after the interview concludes. Questions about the effect of joint interviews as a research practice are presented.

Keywords: Communication Rules, Expectancy Violation Theory, Joint Interviews, Mobile Communication, Romantic Relationships.

References

Afifi, W. A., & Metts, S. (1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365-392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153004
Allan, G. (1980). A note on interviewing spouses together. Journal of Marriage & Family, 42(1), 205–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/351948
Baxter, L. A., Dun, T., & Sahlstein, E. (2001). Rules for relating communicated among social network members. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 18(2), 173-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501182002
Baym, N. K. (2008). What constitutes quality in qualitative internet research? In N. K. Baym & A. Markham (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 173-189). SAGE Publications.
Bjørnholt, M., & Farstad, G. R. (2014). “Am I rambling?” On the advantages of interviewing couples together. Qualitative Research, 14(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112459671
Brinkmann, S. (2018). The interview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 997-1038). SAGE Publications.
Burgoon, J. K. (2015). Expectancy violations theory. In C. R. Berger & M. E. Roloff (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1-9). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Burgoon, J. K., & Jones, S. B. (1976). Toward a theory of personal space expectations and their violations. Human Communication Research, 2(2), 131-146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00706.x
Dainton, M., & Myers, S. A. (2020). Mediated communication and relationships. In Communication and relationship maintenance (pp. 149-170). Cognella.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 29-71). SAGE Publications.
Duck, S., Rutt, D. J., Hurst, M. H., & Strejc, H. (1991). Some evident truths about conversations in everyday relationships: All communications are not created equal. Human Communication Research, 18(2), 228-267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00545.x
Eisikovits, Z., & Koren, C. (2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20(12), 1642–1655. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732310376520
Gershon, I. (2010). The breakup 2.0: Disconnecting over new media. Cornell University Press.
Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2009). Analyzing narrative reality. SAGE Publications.
Guest, G., Namey, E., & Chen, M. (2020). A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS ONE, 15(5), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232076
Hall, J. A., Baym, N. K., & Miltner, K. M. (2014). Put down that phone and talk to me: Understanding the roles of mobile phone norm adherence and similarity in relationships. Mobile Media & Communication, 2(2), 134-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157913517684
Hermanowicz, J. C. (2013). The longitudinal qualitative interview. Qualitative Sociology, 36(2), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-013-9247-7
Humphreys, L. (2018). The qualified self: Social media and the accounting of everyday life. MIT Press.
Jenner, B. M., & Myers, K. C. (2019). Intimacy, rapport, and exceptional disclosure: A comparison of in-person and mediated interview contexts. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 22(2), 165-177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1512694
Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social intercourse: From greeting to goodbye. Allyn & Bacon.
Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Design I: Planning research projects. In T. R. Lindlof & B. C. Taylor (Eds.), Qualitative communication research methods (3rd ed., pp. 71-96). SAGE Publications.
Lowton, K. (2018). He said, she said, we said: Ethical issues in conducting dyadic interviews. In R. Iphofen & M. Tolich (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research ethics (pp. 133-146). SAGE Publications. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/978152643544
Mavhandu-Mudzusi, A. H. (2018). The couple interview as a method of collecting data in interpretative phenomenological analysis studies. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917750994
Mellor, R. M., Slaymaker, E., & Cleland, J. (2013). Recognizing and overcoming challenges of couple interview research. Qualitative Health Research, 23(10), 1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313506963
Miller-Ott, A. E., Kelly, L., & Duran, R. L. (2012). The effects of cell phone usage rules on satisfaction in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 60(1), 17-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.642263
Morgan, D. (2016). Essentials of dyadic interviewing. Routledge.
Morse, J. M. (1995). The significance of saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 5, 147–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239500500201
Neale, B. (2018). What is qualitative longitudinal research? Bloomsbury Publishing.
Pezalla, A. E., Pettigrew, J., & Miller-Day, M. (2012). Researching the researcher-as-instrument: An exercise in interviewer self-reflexivity. Qualitative Research, 12(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111422107
Polak, L., & Green, J. (2016). Using joint interviews to add analytic value. Qualitative Health Research, 26(12), 1638–1648. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315580103
Roggensack, K. E., & Sillars, A. (2014). Agreement and understanding about honesty and deception rules in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(2), 178-199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407513489914
Sanip, S. (2020). Research methodological challenges and recommendations for conducting a comparative qualitative longitudinal study across two countries on different continents. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920917493
Scissors, L. E., & Gergle, D. (2013, February). “Back and forth, back and forth”: Channel switching in romantic couple conflict. Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work -CSCW ’13. ACM Digital Library, San Antonio, TX. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441804
Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules theory and research. SAGE Publications.
Taylor, B., & de Vocht, H. (2011). Interviewing separately or as couples? Considerations of authenticity of method. Qualitative Health Research, 21(11), 1576–1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732311415288
Torgé, C. J. (2013). Using conjoint interviews with couples that have been living with disabilities and illnesses for a long time-implications and insights. Qualitative Studies, 4(2), 100–113. https://doi.org/10.7146/qs.v4i2.8860
Zarhin, D. (2018). Conducting joint interviews with couples: Ethical and methodological challenges. Qualitative Health Research, 28(5), 844 –854. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317749196

Citation

Campbell, J. F. (2021). The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(1), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

Campbell, J. F. (2021). The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use. American Journal of Qualitative Research, 5(1), pp. 206-221. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

Campbell JF. The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2021;5(1), 206-221. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

Campbell, Jamie Foster. "The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use". American Journal of Qualitative Research 2021 5 no. 1 (2021): 206-221. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

Campbell, Jamie Foster "The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use". American Journal of Qualitative Research, vol. 5, no. 1, 2021, pp. 206-221. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930

Campbell JF. The Invisible Influences Behind Joint Interviews: An Examination of Relational Expectations and Technology Use. AM J QUALITATIVE RES. 2021;5(1):206-21. https://doi.org/10.29333/ajqr/10930