Email-facilitated qualitative interviews with traumatic brain injury survivors: A new and accessible method

Primary objective: To trial the method of email-facilitated qualitative interviewing with people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Research design: Qualitative semi-structured email-facilitated interviews. Procedures: Nineteen people (17 severe diagnosis) with a TBI participated in email interviews. Main outcomes and results: Findings indicate that this method facilitates the participation of people with TBI in qualitative interviews. Advantages include increased time for reflection, composing answers and greater control of the interview setting. In addition, the data indicates that people with a TBI are capable of greater insight, reflection and humour than indicated by previous research. Conclusion: Findings indicate that new technologies may advance data collection methods for people with cognitive-linguistic impairments who face participation barriers in face-to-face interviews.

Finding common ground in team-based qualitative research using the convergent interviewing method

Research councils, agencies, and researchers recognize the benefits of team-based health research. However, researchers involved in large-scale team-based research projects face multiple challenges as they seek to identify epistemological and ontological common ground. Typically, these challenges occur between quantitative and qualitative researchers but can occur between qualitative researchers, particularly when the project involves multiple disciplinary perspectives. The authors use the convergent interviewing technique in their multidisciplinary research project to overcome these challenges. This technique assists them in developing common epistemological and ontological ground while enabling swift and detailed data collection and analysis. Although convergent interviewing is a relatively new method described primarily in marketing research, it compares and contrasts well with grounded theory and other techniques. The authors argue that this process provides a rigorous method to structure and refine research projects and requires researchers to identify and be accountable for developing a common epistemological and ontological position.