"Hello, this is ..."
In recent weeks I have had the opportunity (along with other members of the audit team, of course) to conduct the first interviews, so I can now confirm that my initial feeling was correct: Interviews are indeed fun!
After my most recently conducted interview, on the way back to my workplace, I suddenly thought about the methodological aspects of interviews. All the interviews I have conducted so far have been face-to-face. I caught myself thinking that I actually thought that was only natural: That's the way it should be. But looking at the communication technologies at our disposal today, are there other interview modes that are solid substitutes for-or (in some cases) even an improvement over-the "classic" face-to-face interview?
A quick search on Google Scholar brought me to a 2016 article by Shannon M. Oltmann, affiliated with the University of Kentucky. She notes that the vast majority of works on interview methodology state that interviews should be conducted face-to-face, or simply assume that they are. But are there other choices?
Let's consider possible starting points for audit interviews. A review of a number of guidelines and manuals from a variety of organizations regarding audit interviews reveals a similar picture. While a number of guidelines and manuals confirm the existence of other types of interview methodologies, they nevertheless focus only on the face-to-face situation. An example of this concerns the "Guidelines on audit interview" of the European Court of Auditors, which even literally states the following: "An interview can either be face to face or remote. [...]. This guideline focuses on a face-to-face interview situation" (p.2). An example of a manual or guideline that simply assumes (or seems to assume) that interviews are face-to-face concerns the "Internal audit manual" of the Ministry of Finance of Macedonia. By the way, don't ask me how I came by this manual.
The aforementioned article by Oltmann (2016), called "Qualitative interviews: A methodological discussion of the interviewer and respondent contexts," describes more than just the face-to-face interview. It mainly focuses on the trade-off between "classic" face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews. Over the past three decades, telephone interviewing has become increasingly common. Oltmann argues that there is some existing literature that does explicitly address the reasons for choosing phone interviews (see Holt, 2010 and Vogl, 2013, among others). There are even papers that specifically address the choices or trade-offs between face-to-face interviews and phone interviews (see Lechuga, 2012, among others). However, Oltmann argues, there is little structure to the(ze) discussion: "Researchers tend to consider a few advantages or disadvantages, without a unifying perspective, focusing only on the few elements that were relevant to their research" (p.2).
For this reason, Oltmann presents a comprehensive framework/framework in her article, which can be used to identify the advantages and disadvantages of both interview modes, and make a careful choice. In doing so, both the context of the interviewer and the context of the respondent must be considered. In two paragraphs, Oltmann discusses the components of both contexts in relation to both interview modes. The two paragraphs conclude with a summary table, which are shown below (translated).
Interviewer context
Respondent context
For a detailed explanation of both schemes, I must refer you to the article itself, which, by the way, can be viewed free of charge via the Internet. What struck me most is that many studies show that telephone interviews are more suitable for dealing with sensitive or controversial topics than face-to-face interviews (see pages 4 and 5). Something I did not expect beforehand.
I realize all too well that not all components/elements are (always) equally relevant with regard to (the choice of) the interview mode in audits. Oltmann also emphatically states in the concluding section of her paper that researchers should choose the interview mode that is most appropriate and useful for their object of study, based on the contextual components that are most relevant.
Surely the main purpose of this blog, besides pointing out the existence of Oltmann's article and reminiscing about the existence of interview modes other than the classic face-to-face concept, is to provoke discussion. When conducting audits, do you ever use an "other type" of interview mode, such as phone interviews? If so, why? In addition to those mentioned by Oltmann, are there other contextual components that should be considered (in particular) in audits? And could "a Skype interview" possibly represent the ideal middle ground of the classic face-to-face interview and telephone interviewing? Or does that too have (demonstrable) drawbacks? I'd love to hear about it!
Author: Myron Scheper. Myron works as an audit trainee at AuditPeople, and is currently performing internal audits at the Urban Development Service (SO) of the Municipality of Rotterdam.