For this project the interviews were designed as semi-structured to allow the conversation to be led by the interviewee (McCracken, 1988). The interviews consisted of “ordered but flexible questioning” (Dunn, 2016:110) where questions could be crafted in situ based on what had already been covered and the tone of the conversation (Dunn, 2016). For each interview a prompt sheet of questions was created, which included starter questions and themes. Some of the questions were similar across stakeholders in order to be able to compare, but others were tailored to their specific circumstances and intricacies of their situation, some details of which were often known beforehand Table 3.2 shows the broad themes and key questions that were used to guide interviews.
97 Interview topics and questions
General
• Do you want to say a bit about your role?
• What are your top 3-5 priorities or goals?
• What are the 3 key challenges you face achieving your priorities?
Water resources
• What changes have you seen in the water environments?
• What management processes have you been involved in?
• Do you feel they have been effective?
• What problems and issues do you face in work most closely with on water related issues?
• Where are the tensions and why do you think they arise and how can they be overcome?
• Which stakeholders do you think should be more engaged or active?
• Who would you improve your relationships with?
• What would ideal management look like?
Table 3.2 Broad guiding themes and questions for the interviews. These questions would be supplemented with additional question tailored to the stakeholders and during the interview questions are guided by the subsequent answers.
An additional feature of the interviews for this research was the use of a scenario to act as a catalyst for discussions about stakeholders’ behaviour and decision-making processes. As an important focus of the research was to understand and explore the dynamics of stakeholder behaviour, a scenario was devised and each interviewee was asked a series of questions that allowed them to explain how they might react within that scenario. The scenario involved a minewater pollution incident caused by heavy rain and groundwater overflow (Figure 3.6). The interviewee was asked to read the scenario and then asked questions relating to the people affected by the incident, the process of dealing with the problem, and their own potential role and the role of others. The scenario was kept fairly vague in order to allow the stakeholders to add their own interpretation and be able to relate more easily to other similar scenarios without getting bogged down by fictitious detail. The familiarity of the scenario and its plausibility in the Wear catchment
98 (due to its mining legacy) was part of the decision to include the scenario as a catalyst for discussion.
A particular purpose of the scenarios was to identify the networks that might be operational when dealing with a problem. The answers that the stakeholders gave have been able to be incorporated into the development of behavioural rules for stakeholders in an agent-based modelling process described in Chapter 7. The scenario was essential for allowing the stakeholders to describe their activities and relationships in more specific detail than could be gathered otherwise. The descriptions the stakeholders gave allowed ‘if-then’ rules to be developed, particularly as interviewees, in reaction to the vague description, used ‘if’ statements themselves, such as, for example “if there was more of it (pollution) and it wasn't being cleared up…”. The addition of a different way of reflecting by being prompted visually rather than just responding to questions also allowed the interviewees to think differently and to remember or refer to situations and experiences in a different way, which was positive for the interview experience. Although most interviewees did have the chance to respond to it, a few stakeholders did not due to time constraints and a consideration that similar issues had already been covered within the interview.
As such, it was not always possible to base some of the rules for the agent-based model created later in the research (see section7.2.1) on potential reactions described through the scenario. In these cases, they were based on other descriptions and explanations of behaviour discussed in the interviews.
Figure 3.6 The scenario that was presented to stakeholders detailing a minewater pollution event.
99
3.4.5 Positionality
Positionality is always an important aspect of research (Skelton, 2001) and should therefore form part of the understanding and interpretation of the knowledge emerging from interviews.
Valentine (2005) describes positionality as a researcher reflecting on how their own identity, not only as a researcher but as an individual (defined by gender, class, race, nationality, politics, history and experiences (Schoenberger, 1992)), shapes the type and form of research they are doing and the interactions they will have with participants. Schoenberger (1992) argues that knowing the position of a researcher leads to significant discoveries about the nature of research and the research process. By enacting constant, self-conscious scrutiny of the self as researcher (England, 1994) aspects of positionality can be explored. For example, my own experience of researching has been influenced by my previous involvement with the catchment management process through a previous research project. I found my previous involvement to be a benefit as it allowed me to occupy a certain knowledgeable status with stakeholders who knew my history with the project and therefore perhaps considered me a more legitimate participant, particularly when talking informally or requesting further interviews or access to meetings and forums. Equally, having a shared experience, such as an association with the Geography Department at Durham University, or knowledge and familiarity with another stakeholders that the interviewee also knew and worked with helped to create a relationship within the interviews.
There were also times when there was a distinct difference in experience and social background between myself and interviewees and as an additional reflection on difference in the research process, it can often be assumed that becoming as much of an insider as possible builds trust in the research process (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2009:58) and that being distinct from the groups I was talking to would adversely affect my ability to successfully research. I can relate to such an assumption and often had a desire to prove my knowledge or understanding of a situation to show that I was capable and legitimately qualified to research the complex issues mentioned. This sometimes meant that I did not push hard enough for detailed explanations of certain processes, structures or even acronyms to maintain an image of knowledgeability. However, I also was aware of my perceived status as a ‘student’ which was widely accepted, and was able to use that perception of my desire to learn about the situation to ask clarifying questions at the end of the interview and tapping into the narrative of the interviewees ‘helping’ me to research their context.
Therefore, it was clear that trust can also be built through being different and being able to give an observation from afar, which I believe a number of the participants involved in the project valued and identified.
100
3.4.6 Considering ethical issues
Social research is not without impact or consequence for those directly and indirectly involved (Dowling, 2000). It is necessary therefore, that impact should be carefully monitored through the conduct and actions of the researcher in relation to their responsibility towards those they have invited to participate and those communities they have chosen to analyse and study (O’Connell Davidson and Layder, 1994). The core principles underpinning ethical research relate to fairness in the distribution of benefits and burdens; minimization of physical, emotional, economic and environmental harm; and having consideration for the welfare, beliefs, rights, heritage and customs of people involved in the research (Hay, 2010). In this research the most significant ethical issue surrounding the interview process was the protection of interviewees from harm through ensuring that they were aware of the potential use of their words and their rights to control that use should they wish. The topics discussed were not particularly sensitive in a personal sense but the discussion of difficulties and problems, perhaps with particular relationships or even individuals in the management system, may have professional consequences and therefore certain processes of protection needed to be in place.
The first key ethical issue to be tackled was anonymity and confidentiality. It was made clear to stakeholders before the interviews through an information sheet about the project and within it an informed consent form signed by each participant (Appendix A), that their words would be recorded, with their permission, and may be used for direct quotes, but that their interviews would be stored confidentially (following a definition from Babbie, 2004) and their name would not be associated with their words in any written work. The participants were made aware that the name of their organisation might be used in association with their words in order to contextualise the knowledge and information. This approach was acceptable to all interviewees. Most interviewees were clearly representing an organisation and were aware of their ability to be speaking for that organisation and aware of the responsibility of adhering to the message of that organisation.
However in some cases there was an acknowledgement that the individual had multiple identities within the management process (a theme that is picked up in Chapter 5) and that they could be speaking in different capacities. One interviewee asked at one point “do you want me to answer that in terms of the [organisation’s] position or for my own role?”, acknowledging that there was a difference in perspective from a scalar and hierarchical point of view. The organisation chosen as a label for the interviewee’s quotes was the organisation with which they were associated when contacted about the project and asked to be involved. Maintaining the acknowledged organisational identity of each interviewee meant that it was clear for them to understand their position and monitor their words accordingly.
101 Informed consent was an important aspect of maintaining ethical research and an information sheet was sent in order that the participants knew exactly what the research involved and could make an informed choice about participating (Dowling, 2000). An information sheet included details of the rights of the participants to withdraw at any time and a reminder that the participation in the research was voluntary (Hay, 2010). A number of participants exercised their control of the information they were discussing and asked for certain aspects not to be included directly. Examples of such occasions were where they had revealed information about an uncertain future project or change, or revealed a personal opinion or comment on a situation that they thought may not be fair or fully informed, therefore should not be shared directly. The reassurance I could give them that those sections would not be used directly meant they could converse more easily and feel secure in the control of the information they shared and how it was used.
102