Asynchronous Email Interviewing Method

  • Mario BrondaniEmail author
  • Rodrigo Mariño
Reference work entry


This chapter explores the potential use of Internet-based communication applications (e.g., emails) as a method for gathering qualitative research data. In the era of globalized multimedia and at-finger-tips convenient information, electronic communication can provide answers to research inquiries in a timely manner, particularly in cases where the researcher is not required to meet face to face with the participants, or there is not need for audio-record the interview or conversation. We offer a nine-step process on how to administer an electronic interview, from selecting potential participants, interacting with them electronically, to closing the electronic encounter. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of such means while drawing from a brief experience in using email to interview older adults for a research study on aging partially published elsewhere. We use the existing literature to explore the benefits and limitations of email as a research tool. We close the chapter by inviting the reader to ponder about other data collection tools in today’s evolving research arena as an alternative mean to conference calls or face-to-face interviews when time and resources are restricted.


Email Electronic mail Communication Research methods Data collection Qualitative research 


  1. Ahern N. Using the internet to conduct research. Nurse Res. 2005;13(2):55–70.Google Scholar
  2. Alzheimer Society of Canada. Reducing caregiver stress.2009; Retrieved 29 Aug 2011 from
  3. Adams J, Neville S. Resisting the ‘condom every time for anal sex’ health education message. Health Educ J. 2012;71(3):386–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnett MR, Loewen JM, Romito LM. Use of social media by dental educators. J Dent Educ. 2013;77(11):1402–12.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Household use of information technology Australia 2010–11: Catologue no. 8146.0. 2013; Retrieved 30 Aug 2015 from
  6. Bell A, Billot J, Crothers C, Gibson A, Goodwin I, Sherman K, Smith P. The internet in New Zealand: 2007–2009. Auckland: Institute of Culture, Discourse and Communication, AUT University; 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Benfield G. Teaching on web: exploring the meanings of silence. UltiBASE e-Journal. 2000; Retrieved 25 Oct 2010 from
  8. Braun V, Clarke V. Successful qualitative research: a practical guide for beginners. London: Sage; 2013.Google Scholar
  9. Brondani MA, MacEntee M, O’Connor D. E-mail as a data collection tool when interviewing older adults. Int J Qual Methods. 2010;10:221–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burkhalter B. Reading race online: discovering racial identity in usenet discussions. In: Smith M, Kollock P, editors. Communities in cyberspace. London: Routledge; 1999. p. 60–75.Google Scholar
  11. Burns P, Jones SC, Iverson D, Caputi P. Riding the wave or paddling in the shallows? Understanding older Australians’ use of the internet. Health Promot J Austr. 2012;23:145–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Charness N, Parks DC, Sabel BA, editors. Communication, technology and aging: opportunities and challenges for the future. New York: Springer; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social media use in medical education: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(6):893–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. China Highlights. Internet access in China. 2016; Retrieved 20 Jan 2016 from
  15. Cohen A. Internet insecurity: the identity thieves are out there - and someone could be spying on you. Why your privacy on the net is at risk, and what you can do. 2001; Retrieved 7 Mar 2010 from,10987,1101010702-133167,00.html
  16. Constantinides E, Lorenzo-Romero C, Gomez M. Effects of web experience on consumer choice: a multicultural approach. Internet Research. 2010;20:188–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook C. Email interviewing: generating data with a vulnerable population. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68(6):1330–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2014.Google Scholar
  19. de Leeuw E, Nicholls WII. Technological innovation in data collection: acceptance, data quality and costs. Sociol Res Online. 1996;1(4.) Retrieved 15 Dec 2009 from
  20. EMarketer. Demographic profile – Seniors. 2010; Retrieved 30 Aug 2011 from
  21. Etter JF, Perneger TV. A comparison of a cigarette smokers recruited through the internet or by mail. International Epidemiological Association. 2001;30:521–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Flowers LA, Moore JL III. Conducting qualitative research on-line in student affairs. Student Affairs Online. 2003;4(l). Retrieved 2 Sept 2009 from
  23. Freese J, Rivas S, Hargittai E. Cognitive ability and internet use among older adults. Poetics. 2006;34:236–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Funkhouser E, Fellows JL, Gordan VV, Rindal DB, Foy PJ, Gilbert GH. Supplementing online surveys with a mailed option to reduce bias and improve response rate: the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. J Public Health Dent. 2014;74(4):276–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodchild JH, Donaldson M. The use of sedation in the dental outpatient setting: a web-based survey of dentists. Dent Implantol Updat. 2011;22:73–80.Google Scholar
  26. Hackworth BA, Kunz MB. Health care and social media: building relationships via social networks. Acad Health Care ManagJournal. 2010;6:55–68.Google Scholar
  27. Hage B. Bridging the digital divide: The impact of computer training, internet, and email use on levels of cognition, depression, and social functioning in older adults. Gerontechnology. 2008;7:117.Google Scholar
  28. Hahn W, Bikson T. Retirees using email and networked computers. Int J Technol Aging. 1989;2:113–23.Google Scholar
  29. Harwood J, editor. Understanding communication and aging. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.Google Scholar
  30. Haythornthwaite C. Online personal networks. New Media Soc. 2000;2:195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Henry RK, Molnar AL. Examination of social networking professionalism among dental and dental hygiene students. J Dent Edu. 2013;77(11):1425–30.Google Scholar
  32. Henry RK, Molnar A, Henry JC. A survey of US dental practices’ use of social media. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012;13:137–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Internet Live Stats. Internet users. 2015. Retrieved 12 Nov 2015 from
  34. Johnson E, MacFadden K. SeniorNet’s official guide to the web. Emeryville: Lycos Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  35. Jowett A, Peel E, Shaw R. Online interviewing in psychology: reflections on the process. Qual Res Psychol. 2011;8(4):354–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. King E. The use of the self in qualitative research. In: Richardson JTE, editor. Handbook of qualitative research methods for psychology and the social sciences. Leicester: BPS Books; 1996. p. 175–88.Google Scholar
  37. Kutz D, Shankar K, Connelly K. Making sense of mobile- and web-based wellness information technology: cross-generational study. J Med Internet Res. 2013;15:e83. Scholar
  38. Lewis D, Eysenbach G, Kukafka R, Stavri P, Jimison H. Consumer health informatics: informing consumers and improving health care. New York: Springer; 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liamputtong P. Qualitative research methods. 4th ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  40. Mann C, Stewart F. Internet interviewing. In: Holstein JA, Gubrium JF, editors. Inside interviewing: new lenses, new concerns. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2003. p. 241–65.Google Scholar
  41. Mariño R, Marwaha P, Barrow S, Baghaie H. Web-based oral health promotion program for older adults. Paper presented at the 10th world congress on preventative dentistry. 2013. Available from:
  42. Mariño R, Habibi E, Au-Yeung W, Morgan M. Use of communication and information technology among Victorian and south Australian oral health profession students. J Dent Educ. 2012;76:1667–74.Google Scholar
  43. Marx M, Libin A, Renaudat K, Cohen-Mansfield J. Barriers encountered in an e-mail tutorial program for computer-illiterate seniors aged 71–96 years. Geron. 2002;2:151–2.Google Scholar
  44. Meho LI. E-mail interviews in qualitative research: a methodological discussion. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2006;57:1284–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melenhorst AS, Bouwhuis DG. When older adults consider the internet? An exploratory study of benefit perception. Geron. 2004;3:89–101.Google Scholar
  46. McAuliffe D. Challenging methodological traditions: research by e-mail. Qual Rep. 2003;8(1). Retrieved 10 Aug 2009 from
  47. Merlien Institute. Mobile apps for qualitative research. 2016; Retrieved 3 Jan 2016 from
  48. National Center for Educational Statistics. Digest of educational statistics. 2004; Retrieved 29 Aug 2011 from
  49. Neville S, Adams J, Cook C. Using internet-based approaches to collect qualitative data from vulnerable groups: reflections from the field. Contemp Nurse. 2015;21:1–12.Google Scholar
  50. Nulty D. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2008;33:301–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Kane M, Kenne PE, Pearcy H, Morgan T, Ransom G, Devoy K. On the feasibility of automatic punctuation of transcribed speech without prosody or parsing. 1994; Retrieved 30 Aug 2011 from Walking interviews -p2.pdf
  52. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  53. Pew Internet. The Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. 2010; Retrieved 30 Aug 2011 from
  54. Plouffe D. The audacity to win: the inside story and lessons of Barack Obama’s historic victory. New York, NY: Viking Penguin Group Publications; 2009.Google Scholar
  55. Ramsay M. Social media etiquette: a guide and checklist to the benefits and perils of social marketing. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management. 2010;17:257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reisenwitz T, Iyer R, Kuhlmeier DB, Eastman JK. The elderly’s internet usage: an updated look. J Consum Mark. 2007;24:406–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Roy D, Taylor J, Cheston CC, Flickinger TE, Chisolm MS. Social media: portrait of an emerging tool in medical education. Acad Psychiatry. 2016;40(1):136–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Scanfield D, Scanfeld V, Larson E. Dissemination of health information through social networks: twitter and antibiotics. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38:182–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Selwyn N, Robson K. Using email as a research tool. Social Research Update, 21. 1998; Retrieved 2 Sept 2009 from
  60. Serry T, Liamputtong P. The in-depth interviewing method in health. In: Liamputtong P, editor. Research methods in health: foundations for evidence-based practice. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; 2017. p. 67–83.Google Scholar
  61. Shea V. The core rules of netiquette. 2004; Retrieved 19 Feb 2010 from
  62. Simeon R. Evaluating domestic and international web-site strategies. Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy. 1999;9:297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith A. Home broadband 2010. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. 2010; Retrieved 5 Apr 2011 from
  64. Statistics and facts on internet usage in Brazil.2016. Retrieved 20 Jan 2016 from
  65. Statistics Canada. The daily. 2002; Retrieved 2 Sept 2010 from
  66. Statistics Canada. Internet use by individuals, by type of activity (internet users at home). Tables by Subject: Individual and Household Internet Use. 2010; Retrieved 15 Apr 2011 from
  67. Visser J. Dalhousie suspends 13 dentistry students involved in Facebook scandal from clinical activities. National Post, 5 January 2005.Google Scholar
  68. Whyte J, Marlow B. Beliefs and attitudes of older adults toward voluntary use of the Internet: An exploratory investigation. 1999; Retrieved 18 July 2010 from
  69. Wong FL, Greenwell M, Gates S, Berkowitz JM. It’s what you do! Reflections on the VERBTM campaign. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34:175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations