In-Depth Interviewing for ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research

Teaching and Learning Resource (TLR)

1. Title

In-Depth Interviewing for ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research

2. Keywords

In-depth interviewing; ‘investigative’ environmental research.

3. Introduction

Learning tasks in which students undertake in-depth interviewing can assist in the cultivation of transferable communications skills. Depending on the choice of respondent(s) and interview topic(s), they may also facilitate subject-based learning. In the context of ‘investigative’ environmental research’, however, in-depth interviewing can be deployed specifically to reveal the competing ‘knowledge claims’ advanced by stakeholders in a contested environmental issue. This TLR is intended principally to support the Guidelines for ‘Investigative’ Environmental Research TLR - by providing a student-centred introduction to one of the key methods associated with this kind of research - whilst recognising that other learning benefits may accrue simultaneously.

For reasons of practicality, and to provide as non-threatening a learning experience as possible, it is suggested that:

student peers and academic staff - preferably in the learners’ own subject area - act as respondents; and that:
interviewers work in pairs or groups of three.

4. Aim

This TLR aims to provide a student-centred introduction to in-depth interviewing, which is one of the key methods associated with ‘investigative’ environmental research.

5. Learning outcomes

Students who have successfully engaged with this TLR will:

be familiar with the rudiments of in-depth interviewing, technically and procedurally, as well as in terms of relevant methodological theory; and
be equipped with the knowledge, skills and confidence to conduct in-depth interviews, particularly in the context of undergraduate ‘investigative’ research.

6. Pre-requisites

There are no specific pre-requisites. Given the inherent interdisciplinarity of many amongst the richest research opportunities afforded by ‘investigative’ environmental research, however, optimal benefit can probably be derived by using this TLR in the context of programme-wide learning experiences which are themselves tending towards interdisciplinarity.

7. How to use TLR

The TLR is intended principally for use in the context of more wide-ranging courses in environmental research methods. It could usefully be preceded by a lecture-based or other formal introduction to the principles and practice of in-depth interviewing. It might also be accompanied by some consideration of questionnaire-based research - since these two methods of questioning represent, respectively, the opposing ‘interpretivist’ and ‘positivist’ (or ‘subjectivist’ and ‘objectivist’) schools of academic thought. A brief synopsis of each is attached as Appendix 1.

It is also possible to use the TLR as a ‘free-standing’ activity, for instance in preparation for an ‘investigative’ research project.

As indicated above, the learning activities suggested here are intended for use by pairs or groups of three students - but could be undertaken (with minor modifications) by competent and confident individuals. As indicated above also, it is proposed that student peers and academic staff (preferably in the learners’ own subject area) act as respondents; in order to achieve the learning outcomes, each learner should probably participate in at least three interviews - ideally beginning with one or more student peers and ending with at least one member of academic staff. Learners can be left to make their own arrangements with regard to the former, but it may well be necessary for tutors to act as ‘gatekeepers’ in respect of the latter (for which purpose, a suggested letter of ‘invitation to participate’ is attached as Appendix 2).

Whilst choice of interview topic is to some extent incidental, and whilst students’ motivation will probably be enhanced by allowing at least some element of discretion on their part, the following guidelines may be helpful:

Interviews should serve to reveal the respondents’ personal ‘knowledge claims’ on a contested environmental question - either where the contestation applies to scientific interpretations of a given question, and/or where there is political, ethical or philosophical disputation.
Students will learn more effectively from experience if they adopt the same topic in all interviews.
Choice of topic should permit interviewers and respondents to engage in an informed and intelligent exchange, and to achieve some kind of ‘closure’ within the time available.

Possible interview topics might include:

A locally, nationally or internationally prominent environmental issue
Respondents’ personal environmental philosophies

Experience suggests that this is a popular exercise, both with respondents (many of whom welcome an opportunity to expound their personal views!) and with interviewers (who tend especially to relish the opportunity to question members of academic staff with unaccustomed closeness). However there is clearly an element of ‘risk’ - not least for staff-student relations - if respondents are exposed to inappropriate lines of questioning. It is vital, therefore, that interview topics are negotiated - and that such negotiations involve both the supervising tutor and prospective respondents. Learners must be also be clearly briefed about the need to adopt probing but not excessively intrusive lines of questioning. Furthermore, their approach should be strictly non-confrontational: the interview task is one of revealing and comprehending, as fully as possible, respondents’ personal ‘knowledge claims’, and this will not be accomplished if interviewers seek to assert their own views.

Finally, it is strongly recommended that tutorial support be provided: if possible, two meetings of approximately 20 minutes with each pair/group, including one during the preparatory stages and another prior to the final interview. In aggregate, this TLR is nonetheless considered to be efficient in its utilisation of staff time - that is, when judged against the quantity and quality of learning which it can facilitate.

8. Instructions to students

The precise instructions provided to learners will depend on local circumstances (e.g. provision of tutorial support), but might be based on the guidelines provided in Appendix 3.

9. Stimulus Material

The activity is self-contained, and no additional materials are required.

10. Degree stage

Given the preferred educational context within which this TLR is intended for use (see Introduction, Pre-requisites and How to Use TLR, above), its effective use will be mainly confined to undergraduate levels 2 and above.

11. Resource requirements

The only significant requirement is for portable and effective (but preferably non-intrusive) audio-tape recorders and cassettes.

12. Preparation

See How to Use TLR, Appendix 1, Appendix 2 and Appendix 3.

13. Links with other TLRs

Though principally related to Guidelines for Investigative Environmental Research, this TLR reflects a wider concern for the critical examination of contested knowledge claims which is shared with:

More generally, the aims and/or learning outcomes of this TLR are related to those of other TLRs listed in the following 'thematic cluster':

Critical thinking skills

14. Follow-up activities

As indicated above, the TLR provides no more than an introduction to in-depth interviewing: it is intended to prepare students for its use in ‘investigative’ environmental research projects.

15. Recommended reading

Research methods texts written specifically for scientists do not generally give consideration to in-depth interviewing. Conversely most of the more accessible social research methods books do contain some useful advice - at least of a practical nature, e.g. on recording of interviews. However few deal explicitly with the specific applications of in-depth interviewing that are of concern here; and many subsume guidance on ‘in-depth’ and questionnaire-based interviewing within a single chapter or section - thereby blurring the distinction between the uses of questioning in two very different methodological contexts. Furthermore, some social research methods texts (including several which might otherwise be thought appropriate for non-specialists in this field) entirely fail to acknowledge the ‘problematic’ nature of knowledge, including the frequently-contested nature of knowledge claims. Based on these considerations, the main recommended source is (*):

Gilbert, N ed (1993) Researching Social Life. Sage
Chapter 8 is mainly appropriate, though many science students would find section 8.7 quite difficult. Furthermore, this chapter does not explicitly identify ‘informants’ and ‘claims-makers’ as potential respondents. Chapter 4 (especially section 4.2.1) deals with questions of access to elites.

* Conversely, and based on the same criteria, the following examples of widely-used social research methods texts are not recommended:

Bell, J (1993) Doing Your Research Project. Open University Press (2nd edition)
Kane, E (1985) Doing Your Own Research. Marion Boyars
McNeill, P (1990) Research Methods. Routledge (2nd edition)

16. Users' comments

“The activities are very student centred and generally very enjoyable.”

“One of the implications of the student centred approach for these activities is that there was a larger time ‘cost’ that I had not fully appreciated. This does not in any way devalue the TLR.”

“Large group [51 students] had significant implications for organisation and planning in the use of this TLR - very worthwhile though!”

“It is worth considering the use of video cameras as well as tape recorders for interviewing purposes with some students. It makes an interesting comparison in terms of approach and outcome.”

“I asked students to conduct both a peer and self-assessment of how well they thought they had achieved the stated aims of the TLR. This seemed the most appropriate form of assessment given the student centred nature of the activities.”

Appendix 1

Questionnaires and In-Depth Interviews: Some Fundamental Distinctions

Criterion	Questionnaire	In-Depth Interview
Target Group and Uses	Statistically representative sample of some larger population, about whom inferences can be made within known confidence limits (e.g. sample of British adult public opinion on genetically-modified foodstuffs). Range of possible uses include surveys of opinions and (past, present or anticipated) behaviours, along with personal demographic and socio-economic data.	May target a small, judgementally- (or ‘purposively-’) selected, sample of some larger grouping (e.g. spokespersons for a cross-section of environmental pressure groups; cross-section of a chemical poisoning support group). May also target specific individuals (e.g. prominent ‘opinion formers’ or policy-makers) or spokespersons for specific groups (e.g. chemical manufacturers’ trade association) who are of interest in one or more of the following capacities: key informants (i.e. providers of non-contestable information) authoritative and/or credible claims-makers influential social actors
Approach to Questioning	Normally the range, wording and sequencing of questions, along with the range of permissible answers, are prescribed; however a small number of open-ended questions may occasionally be included. Strict standardisation of interviewer behaviour (including ‘non-verbal’ cues) is essential, in order to eliminate possible interviewer bias in responses. However, the researcher ‘sets the agenda’!	Normally the wording and sequencing of questions - along with the range of permissible answers - are open-ended, and the range of questions is circumscribed only by the scope of the researcher’s interests and/or the respondent’s willingness to answer. Hence the interviewer is permitted to probe and to follow-up unanticipated points of interest; but must do so sensitively, to ensure that the respondent is permitted to explore and articulate her/his own views as fully and freely as possible.
Methods of Delivery	Face-to-face, telephone or self-completion (including self-completion by email).	Normally face-to-face; occasionally by telephone or video-conferencing etc.
Data and Findings	Generates quantitative and quantifiable (i.e. categorical, such as yes/no, agree/disagree) data, which are aggregated to provide a picture of the population from which the sample was selected. Data and findings reflect the prescriptive approach to questioning (see above), including the ‘forced-choice’ nature of many questions (whereby responses may be confined to a single word or short phrase, selected from a prescribed list, and with which respondents must unambiguously identify).	Generates: non-contestable information (where respondents are questioned as ‘informants’); potentially-contestable accounts of respondents’ knowledge claims; accounts of their socially-influential behaviours etc. Mainly qualitative and individual data - albeit with the possibility of an aggregate overview, where a judgementally-selected sample of some larger grouping has been interviewed.

Criterion (cont’d)

Questionnaire (cont’d)

In-Depth Interview (cont’d)

Possibilities of ‘Bias’

Interviewer may not (some would argue, can not) adhere to the strict standardisation requirements.

Respondents may:

be influenced by ‘contextual’ factors, such as the interviewer’s manner, the venue and other circumstances surrounding the interview;
give the kinds of answers they believe the interviewer wants to hear;
wish to portray themselves in a favourable light;
be unable to recall past - or to predict future - behaviours;
be unable to provide unambiguous answers;
not find the questions intelligible, or may not share the interviewer’s understanding of them;
derive gratification from deliberately providing ‘false’ answers.

Interviewer may (knowingly or unknowingly) not permit respondent to explore and articulate her/his own views fully and freely.

Respondents may:

be influenced by ‘contextual’ factors, such as the interviewer’s manner, the venue and other circumstances surrounding the interview;
give the kinds of answers they believe the interviewer wants to hear;
wish to portray themselves in a favourable light;
be unable to recall past - or to predict future - behaviours;
not find the questions intelligible, or may not share the interviewer’s understanding of them;
derive gratification from deliberately providing ‘false’ answers.

However:

many of these dangers can be reduced in the course of probing, seeking clarification, cross-checking etc;
the ‘subjective’ accounts of claims-makers and influential social actors (e.g. ways in which they endeavour to portray themselves in a favourable light) may be of direct research interest.

Underlying Philosophy

Essentially positivist (i.e. closely mirrors the principles of natural & physical science). In particular, relies upon:

objectivity and replicability of method;
statistical inference, from sample to population;
use of correlation to identify possible causal relationships amongst variables.

Premised on the belief that all individuals' attitudes and behaviours should carry equal weight in the study of social patterns and processes (i.e. neglects institutional and other 'macro'-level considerations, and gives no special consideration to influential individuals).

Broadly associated with non-positivist (subjectivist and interpretivist) traditions in social research, but cannot be identified exclusively with any one approach.

As used here, in-depth interviewing is premised on the belief that:

special consideration should be given to the views (knowledge claims) of influential social actors; and, more generally, that:
individuals subjectively construct meanings in more complex ways than can be revealed by standardised questioning.

Appendix 2

Sample Letter to Prospective (Academic Staff) Respondents

Dear Colleague,

I am writing to ask for your help with a small project that I am about to undertake with [...] students. The project provides an introduction to the method of in-depth interviewing.

Working in pairs or groups of three, students will be asked to conduct a number of in-depth interviews - variously with academic staff and fellow students - on topics which will reflect one (or, conceivably, some combination) of the following themes:

a locally, nationally or internationally prominent environmental issue
respondents’ personal environmental philosophies
respondents’ views of scientific knowledge, especially its significance in terms of environmental degradation and protection.

Each interview will be designed to last between 20 and 30 minutes, and students will be instructed:

to agree their topic with me and with prospective respondents, in advance of the interviews
to provide confidentiality assurances to their respondents
to adopt a probing but not excessively intrusive or confrontational line of questioning
to make written and/or audio-tape records of all interviews
to omit all reference to respondents’ identity from their report.

If you are willing to be interviewed, would you please use the accompanying form to provide details of your availability between [date] and [date]. Unless you indicate otherwise, you will only be interviewed once; nonetheless, two or more alternative dates/times would be appreciated. In all cases, you will receive confirmation of the interview arrangements from the students concerned.

Please accept my thanks, in anticipation of your willingness to participate in this project.

Yours sincerely,

In-Depth Interviewing Project

Yes, I am willing to participate in the Interviewing Project

My name	.
My location (office, building etc)	.
My telephone number	.
My e-mail address	.
My preferred dates and times for interview	. . . .

Signed ...............................................................

Appendix 3

Suggested Instructions to Students

INTRODUCTION

This assignment is designed to facilitate learning about the method of in-depth interviewing. In order to complete the assignment, you will need to conduct at least three interviews, each of about 20-30 minutes’ duration, including:

at least two preliminary interviews with fellow students (of your own choice); and
one final interview with a member of academic staff - identity to be negotiated with your supervising tutor.

You should adopt the same topic for all interviews: this should be agreed within your group, as well as with your supervising tutor and - most importantly - with prospective respondents. Interviews should serve to reveal your respondents’ personal ‘knowledge claims’ on a contested environmental question - either where the contestation applies to scientific interpretations of a given question, and/or where there is political, ethical or philosophical contestation. Choice of topic should enable you and your respondents to engage in an informed and intelligent exchange, and to achieve some kind of ‘closure’ within the time available. Possible interview topics might include:

A locally, nationally or internationally prominent environmental issue.
Respondents’ personal environmental philosophies.

The preparatory work for these interviews will include reading and the development of an interview ‘agenda’. Follow-up work will include analysis of the written and/or audio-tape records of your interviews, and the preparation of a brief report. You will also need to attend two tutorials to discuss the progress of your work.

Throughout the assignment you should work in a self-selected group of two or three students. However the final group report should be accompanied by a brief individual diary.

PROCEDURE

Identify one or two fellow students with whom you wish to work on the assignment.
Make arrangements within your group to undertake some preparatory reading on in-depth interviewing, from the list provided, and to share the resultant learning.
Identify your interview topic and respondents, in negotiation with the supervising tutor and the proposed respondents themselves. Confirm date, time and place for your interviews.
Make arrangements within your group to undertake some preparatory reading on the interview topic, and to share the resultant learning.
Devise a preliminary ‘agenda’ for your first interview, which should be designed to last about 20-30 minutes, and decide the methods of recording etc. Make arrangements to undertake any further reading that may be considered necessary, and to share the resultant learning.
Make arrangements to ensure that you have access to the appropriate recording equipment. Test all equipment before use!
Attend a first tutorial, to discuss your proposed interview agenda and proposed methods.
Reconvene your group to finalise the agenda and methods for your first interview, and to agree the allocation of tasks (who asks which questions, who manages the recording equipment etc).
Carry out all but your final interview. In order to optimise your learning about the method of in-depth interviewing, you should experiment (at least during these preliminary interviews) with different lines and styles of questioning, different methods of recording etc. You should also systematically review the group’s ‘performance’ in each interview, and consider what changes may be appropriate in the light of such reviews.
Attend a second tutorial, to discuss your preliminary interview experiences, plans for the final interview, and your planned report.
Carry out and review your final interview.
Discuss all the work undertaken thus far, and remaining work - including any further reading and preparation of the report.
Prepare and submit your report.

THE REPORT

Your report should consist only of the following elements:

The agenda adopted for your final interview.
A group report of approximately 600 words, written in such a way as to demonstrate what your group learned about interviewing, from reading and planning/carrying out the interviews. Specifically the report should address the following questions, and should not include other material:
- What did you learn about the organisational aspects of group interview work?
- What steps are involved in, and what did your group learn about, the formulation of an interview agenda?
- What did your group learn about good practice in the conduct of interviews - e.g. time management, delivery of questions, recording of answers?
- How far did your questions enable respondents' personal knowledge claims to be elicited?
The report should be supported by appropriate in-text references and a full bibliography.
A brief individual diary, listing tutorials, group meetings and interviews etc in which you personally participated, along with your major periods of private study. All those present at meetings etc in which you participated should be identified, but no evaluation of individual contributions is required.

Assessment criteria for the report (in descending order of importance) are:

interview practices (e.g. confidentiality assurances, delivery of questions, recording of answers) organisation of group interview work
interview ‘agenda’
evaluation of your learning
bibliographic citation
general presentation.

FINALLY PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY

Respondents must not be exposed to intrusive lines of questioning, of a kind that they do not welcome. It is vital, therefore, that interview topics are negotiated - and that such negotiations involve both your supervising tutor and prospective respondents.
During the interviews, you should adopt a probing but non-confrontational line of questioning: the interview task is one of revealing, as fully as possible, your respondents’ personal ‘knowledge claims’, and this will not be accomplished if you seek to assert your own views.
You must respect your respondents' rights to confidentiality. This means that your respondents' identity should not be apparent in the report or diary, and that you should not disclose information provided or views expressed during interviews to any other person. It is good practice to begin your interviews by providing confidentiality assurances. These rules may not be appropriate for all in-depth interviews, but they must be followed for the purpose of this assignment.
We expect to award the same marks to each member of a given group, but reserve the right to adjust marks - where appropriate - in the light of evidence concerning individual contributions.

READING

Gilbert, N ed (1993) Researching Social Life. Sage
Chapter 8 is mainly appropriate, though you may find section 8.7 quite difficult. Furthermore, this chapter does not explicitly identify ‘informants’ and ‘claims-makers’ as potential respondents. Chapter 4 (especially section 4.2.1) deals with questions of access to elites.