This document discusses interpreting online phenomenological experiences and summarizing interviews conducted online versus by telephone. It presents an example comparing interview excerpts from a study of 10 female online game players with disabilities. Online interviews contained more personal disclosure and active construction of identity compared to telephone interviews. The document concludes that online methods can elicit rich experiential data but lack nonverbal cues and carry risks of deception.

1. Interpreting the online
phenomenological experience
Aleks Krotoski
SPERI
University of Surrey
IPA Conference 2006
University of Sussex, 12 September

2. The Internet as an experiential
phenomenon
• The Internet and online community
– Disproximate grouping
– Belongingness
– Openness and honesty
• The Internet and identity: Anonymity
– Self-presentation
– Mutability/Multiplicity
– Self-efficacy
• Norms?

3. Internet Methods
• Advantages
– Access
– Phenomenon-relevant
• Semi-structured interviews
– Synchronous modes (Stromer-Galley, 2003; Mann
& Stewart, 2000; Chase, 2000)
– Saves transcription time
– Quality, not quantity?

4. Online methods
• Disadvantages
– Lack of non-verbal cues
“Online, I can’t see the other person’s face, hear their tone
of voice, or get any sense of who they are beyond the
words I see scrolling up my own screen. This does not
mean the interview is less interesting. Through their words
and through my interaction with them. I could sense joy,
anger, passion, bitterness, happiness. In fact, I was
surprised and impressed by the intensity of
conversations.” (p. 71, Markham, 1998)
• Role of emotional shortcuts?
– Deception
– Research interferences
– Sampling: knowing where to look

5. An example -the context
• Online games
• Identity

6. Participants
• 10 female players
• 5 wheelchair users
• Research Question: elicitation of Possible
Selves through online interaction?
• Collection: online and telephone interviews

7. Comparison I
• Telephone Interview:
“I suppose just thinking that I can do things,
yeah. You know, you start to be able to play a
game and you think, well I can play that as
well as someone else can. So, yeah, that, that
does help. A positive attitude, I suppose, it
does make you feel more positive in general,
definitely.” (Marcus)

8. Comparison II
• Online interview:
“I've been imagining myself being able to walk, fly, pilot
a starship for a long time. Being in a virtual world,
able to walk or fly, isn't too new a concept for me.
I'd say, for me, my experience in a wheelchair
probably makes it as difficult to reorient my view of
walking as it is for someone who does walk -- I'd like
to think I have an edge in the "no preconceived
mindsets of...how to work in strange, difficult
environments." (Aaron)

9. Comparison III
• Online interview:
“It did give me huge satisfaction to be better than
others who I know dont [sic] have my problems in
R[eal] L[ife].” (Peter)
“From an interest... standpoint, it has definately
solidifed [sic] what my true interests lie in. Unlike the
usual game...player, I want to understand more
about the craft, how games are made, and how they
do...bring people together.” (Mandy)

10. Conclusion
• Lack of tangents
• Stratification between participant and
researcher
• Active construction (self-presentation)
• Themes closely related to the interview
questions

11. Thank you
Aleks Krotoski
SPERI
University of Surrey
A.Krotoski@surrey.ac.uk
IPA Conference 2006
University of Sussex, 12 September