Classification of interviewees

The interviews took place in four areas of FCT-Abuja. As noted, I classify interviewees into two categories, elite and non-elite; both elite and non-elite could be considered professionals. Both elite and non-elite held jobs for which specialist training is required and to which some status is attached but dividing them relies on an idea of influence, prestige and power (political and economic) that one group held compared to the other. The list of professions, however, do not entirely capture why one person falls into one group rather than the other. For example, I interviewed a barrister, who I classify as a non- elite professional because this person did not have a high-status government role although his occupational title makes clear he has a high-level

profession. Elite status is based on several factors including a high-level profession, but equally important is a level of political influence as well as higher income compared to other people in the same area. In this respect, by the elite, I mean and interviewed a: politician, banker, large-scale

commercial farmer, high-level administrator (local government chairmen). By non-elite professional, I mean and interviewed a: mechanic, barrister,

teacher, shop owner, road transport crew chief, ombudsman. The reason for separating out professionals into elite/non-elite is not simply to designate different statuses in Nigerian society but to offer a sense of the discrete influence and knowledge each group held. Elites hold an influential role in society and are likely to know high-level government officials and to be aware of policy developments. Non-elites also had a degree of influence, but this was more oriented towards their own communities, is perhaps seen as opinion leaders and thus offer potentially representative views of the communities they lived in. It is necessary to obtain information from elite and non-elite and find out if legitimacy and trust in the police has a relationship with the socioeconomic status of an individual or group of individuals (Okoiye, 2011; Udosen, et. al., 2006)

Overall, out of 27 non-elite professionals invited to be interviewed 16 interviews were successfully concluded. Of the 13 prospective elite participants, 5 were available for the interview. In a situation where a

99

respondent had no time to attend the interview at the scheduled time, the participants could suggest another date while the researcher considered if such date was suitable. Most interviews took place in the offices of the

interviewees, except for three cases of interviews conducted in the residence of the participants. All the interviews were held during the normal working hours between 8.00 and 16.00 every day during the fieldwork period.

In order to get the full details concerning participants’ views, the interviews were tape-recorded with the consent of the interviewees. Most interviews lasted 60 – 90 minutes. There were a few exceptions where interviews lasted for more or less time than this. For instance, the interview conducted with an elite participant in Kuje area council of FCT-Abuja lasted for 130 minutes while the interview conducted with a non-elite member in Gwagwalada area council lasted for 45 minutes and was the shortest interview conducted. Interviewees’ numbers coding system

In order to ensure anonymity of participants, and in the interest of providing a simple reference system for interviews (and focus groups) spread across so many areas, I assigned a code to each participant (see table 1). The

participants in Amac/Garki were assigned A1 to A6. The first A1 and A2 represent the views of the two elite members, while the A3 to A6 are the views of the non-elite members. Abaji members’ views are coded with B1 to B5; the B1 represents the view of the only elite among the five members. In Gwagwalada, participant’s views were assigned with the code C1 to C5, the only elite interviewed was assigned code C1. In the Kuje area council, the interview responses were assigned D1 to D5 and the only elite from the council was assigned the first code being D1.

Table 1 The interview location, participants’ code and the breakdown of interviewees by gender and status

FCT-Abuja

Area Total interviews Male Female Elite elite Non- Participant code

Amac/Garki 6 3 3 2 (A1

and A2)

4 A1 to A6

100 (B1) Gwagalada 5 4 1 1 (C1) 4 C1 to C5 Kuje 5 4 1 1 (D1) 4 D1 to D5 Total all areas 21 15 6 5 16 Semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews have questions set by the researcher as a guide which is often referred to as “interview guide”, but the interviewee has a great “flexibility on how to respond to the guide” (Noaks and Wincup, 2006: 79). Ian and Semmens (2008), point out that the interview guide only provides the key areas to be examined, without any definite direction on the pattern of responses imposed on the interviewees. In semi-structured interviews, the participants were given the freedom to discuss and share their feelings and opinions in the way they perceive fit and the researcher listens, moderates and asks questions on unclear responses. Semi-structured interviews are powerful methods for documenting information. They allow the interviewer to capture a wide range of information by directing discussions and extending the topic so that it will reveal some hidden facts thoroughly. It also allows the participants in the interview to discuss and describe their understanding of the topics and to make connections based on that understanding rather than on the rigid questions drawn up in advance by the interviewer (Bryman, 2012).

Semi-structured interviews allowed me to focus on the themes of interest, as well as allowing research participants to interpret themes and topics in their own terms, without me imposing assumptions on them. For instance, words like “honesty” and “sincerity” were often used during group discussion, with much probing; I understood that they intended these to mean and thus articulated concepts of, fairness, truthfulness, openness and objectivity. Along with this line, this research sought an in-depth opinions and narratives of citizens’ perceptions of the police. One model here is offered by Tyler’s

101

studies (e.g. 2006) which involved interaction with the participants and listening to their stories in their own words through the interviews. Interview guide

The interview principles espoused by Pamela, et al., (2011) suggests a flexible approach in which the interviewee is allowed freedom to express himself or herself. As Bryman (2008) suggests, a good interview question does not

restrict the interviewee to a specific direction rather stimulates a wide range of ideas, to achieve this and with an intention to create a stimulating

atmosphere were people would be free to share their experiences, semi- structured interviews were exploited.

During the interviews and also during the group discussions, three categories of questions were used; the first dealt with the background and demographic data of the participants, the next area dealt with specific knowledge and experiences of citizens regarding the legitimacy of the police in FCT-Abuja. This included the awareness of the role of the police, the citizens’

experiences with the police and the third category was more evaluative, asking about views concerning what would influence their trust in the police. (see appendix 5, interview guide).