Qualitative interviews are a researcher’s go-to for diving deep into lived experience, but once you’ve chosen the interview path, the next question is tactical: which fighter are you bringing into the field?

In one corner, we have Remote Interviews that are agile, efficient, and accessible. In the other corner, In-Person Interviews that are grounded, emotionally resonant, and packed with presence. Both are powerful in their own right, but each brings a different set of strengths and vulnerabilities to the match.

Let’s take a closer look before you pick your champion.

Remote Interviews: The Featherweight

New, agile, and fast on its feet, remote interviews might be light on logistics, but they hit hard with flexibility and reach.

One of the main advantages of remote interviews, conducted via phone or video calls, is accessibility. Participants can join from their own homes, removing barriers related to travel, time, or geography. This can be especially beneficial when working with hard-to-reach populations or when recruiting from wide geographical areas. Remote interviews also reduce costs associated with travel, venue hire, and printed materials.

From a logistical standpoint, remote interviews are typically easier to schedule and reschedule. They can feel less intimidating for some participants, encouraging openness and candour, especially when discussing sensitive topics. Additionally, with participants in their own environment, researchers may gain insights into contexts that might not arise in a formal setting.

However, remote interviews aren’t without limitations. Building rapport through a screen or phone line can be more difficult, particularly in emotionally complex interviews. Nonverbal cues like body language or facial expressions may be harder to read or missed entirely, especially in audio-only formats. Technical issues such as poor internet connection, background noise, or device compatibility can also disrupt the flow of conversation.

In-Person Interviews: The Heavyweight

Old-school, grounded, and built for impact, in-person interviews bring depth, presence, and a knockout sense of connection.

In-person interviews often allow for a deeper level of engagement. The face-to-face dynamic enables researchers to observe nonverbal communication more fully, facilitating greater empathy and understanding. This also helps build rapport more quickly, leading to richer detailed data.

In some contexts, particularly where cultural or social norms value physical presence, in-person interviews may be more appropriate and respectful. Researchers can better manage distractions and ensure confidentiality by having more control in curating an appropriate environment.

However, in-person interviews can be more time-consuming and costly. Travel, venue arrangements, and scheduling conflicts can slow the research process, especially when working with large or dispersed samples. Additionally, some participants may feel nervous or constrained in a formal interview setting.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the choice between remote and in-person interviews should be guided by the research aims, participant needs, and available resources. If flexibility, reach, and efficiency are key, Remote might be your champion. If connection, presence, and depth are what you need, In-Person is ready to deliver. And sometimes, the smart move is to train both fighters. Using a mixed approach or providing the two formats as options can give you the best of both worlds.

What matters most is creating a space where participants feel safe, heard, and respected. The fighter that will win the match for you is whichever best fits your participants, your topic, and your style as a researcher.

So, who are you putting in the ring?

Lois Ann Parri

Originally written on March 2024 – London, England UK