El sentimiento de soledad

3.4.2 Online E-interviews

For interviews with participants who were not representatives of recovery groups but were

members of these organisations and affected communities, I included an online e-interview option. I offered this as an alternative option for individuals who were key informants that were keen to participate but too busy for face to face interviews. The online e-interview is an emerging method that provides a low key and less intense form of participation that is especially useful for interacting with individuals around sensitive issues (Hewson, 2003; Jensen, 2010). Online e-interviews follow a similar semi-structured format as face to face interviews and are carried out using a website survey programme (Hewson, 2003). Other benefits of this method include the ability to target certain populations online using new groups and forums, and the ability to offer a form of participation that can take place at any time in the comfort of the participant’s home (Hewson, 2003). Because of concerns that organisations and communities that have experienced disaster may be overwhelmed with research requests, this method provided an ideal complementary practice to in depth semi-structured interviews.

For this method, I used the internet based software Qualtrics to establish the e-interview. I adapted the questions used in the semi-structured interviews to provide open-ended questions that

participants could answer. Participants were recruited for the e-interview by a combination of real world and virtual methods. This included posting the link on Facebook and Twitter, as well as asking organisations to send the link and a short description via email or social networks to their members.

45

Individuals were encouraged to ‘share’ the posts to further the reach of the survey. In this way, the sampling method resembles snowballing in that participants were likely to share the information within their networks (Polkinghorne, 2005). In addition to these virtual forms of communication I created small business card sized notes with the details of the e-interview on them that I distributed through the Christchurch CBD and New Brighton in cafes and libraries. I also put up posters with tear-away details for the e-interview website in community notice boards, cafés and libraries.

Participants who either typed in the web address from the notice or clicked through to the survey from web postings were initially directed to a short introductory page. Participants were then asked to click through to the full information sheet to read before proceeding. Information was provided about who to contact to withdraw their answers from the survey if they desired to do so. To start the online interview, the participant had to tick a box that provided consent and confirmed the individual had read and understood the information sheet. Basic demographic questions were then

asked, followed by the open ended in depth questions. Participants were able to leave the e-interview at any time and this was emphasized in the information sheet. The online interview ended with the opportunity to sign up for newsletter updates, and a blurb of information on where to receive help if the interview had prompted any distress.

This method resulted in 108 responses. The length and depth of answers provided through these responses was mixed. Some respondents replied in detail, writing many paragraphs for most questions, while others responded with several lines. All responses however have been useful in sharing the wide range of opinions and experiences of those in Christchurch and by doing so I was able to get a much broader perspective than possible with semi-structured interviews alone.

There were some challenges with this method of e-interview. For instance, those with limited technology are excluded from this option (McLafferty, 2010). In addition, there is a potential to miss the target group of respondents (McLafferty, 2010). However, Hewson (2003) has found that research comparing the participant profiles of both online only and non-online methods that demographics were remarkably similar. In some cases, the online samples actually provided better representation across age profiles (Hewson, 2003).

As there is still ambiguity regarding the possibility for digital exclusion in these methods, online interviews were engaged as a secondary method. Thus, the main portion of data collection has been carried out through more traditional face-to-face semi-structured interviews. By gathering

demographic data I was able to ascertain the gender, age and ethnicity of the respondents (see

46

Table 4, 5 & 6). Interestingly, younger age groups were most absent from the survey, with many in older age categories responding. There were eight responses in the age range 18-30 years of age and sixteen responses from the age range 60 and over. This demographic data supports the claims by Hewson (2003) that e-methods are able to achieve a wide range of responses across age and gender.

Table 4: Age range of e-interview participants

Age Range (years old) Number of Responses Percentage of Responses %

18-30 8 7

30-40 15 14

40-50 30 28

50-60 38 35

60+ 16 15

No Response 1 1

Total 108 100

Table 5: Self-described gender identity of e-interview participants

Gender Identity Number of Responses Percentage of Responses %

Female 81 75

Male 23 21

Gender Queer 1 1

No Response 3 3

Total 108 100

Table 6: Self-reported ethnicity of e-interview participants

Ethnic Identity Number of Responses

Pākehā/NZ European/Caucasian 78

New Zealander/Kiwi 18

Māori 1

Asian 1

Canadian 2

American 2

No Response 7

47

NB: Some individuals identified with more than one ethnic category. Participants were able to type their own labels for their identity. The label New Zealander has been listed separately to Pākehā/NZ European due to ambiguity as to the similarities and differences between participants’

ideas of national identity.