Data Preparation and Analysis

In accordance with the suggestion of Hansen et al. (1998), the data was analysed using a statistical computer package as it is argued that the use of such packages offers the researcher more flexibility to manipulate and analyse large amounts of data. Also, when analysing data the researcher, while being focussed on answering the research questions, should also be open to the possibilities afforded by unexpected trends occurring in the data. Therefore, the flexibility of analysis offered by using a computer package was also an advantage in this respect.

The data was entered into an SPSS 15 database and this aided in conducting frequencies and bi-variate and multi-variate cross-tabulations.

3.2.12 Summary

Content analysis is a frequently used technique to study the reportage of biotechnology and GM and is, therefore, an appropriate technique for this study. This section has addressed the limitations of content analysis and has described how the technique is used in this study. The next section goes on to explain how the interview methodology was used in this thesis.

3.3. Interview Methodology 3.3.1 Introduction

This section begins by explaining the choice of the method and this is followed by a description of the interview participants. The interview questions are then outlined, before the section describes how the resulting interviews were analysed. The section concludes by examining the limitations of the method.

84

The choice of any methodology is dependent upon the purpose of the research and the questions being asked (Locke, 1989 in Seidman, 2006). As this study in part asks how journalists and their scientific sources experienced being involved in the reporting of the GM debate, the use of in-depth interviews is an appropriate method. As Rubin and Rubin (2005) argue, “interviewing is about obtaining interviewees’ interpretations of their experiences and their understanding of the world in which they live and work” (p. 36). Therefore, interviewing is a suitable method to analyse how journalists and scientific news sources interact with one another in the reporting GM debate. In particular, the interviews were conducted to answer the following sub-questions:

4. How did scientists and journalists perceive the reporting of the GM debate? 5. How did the journalists and scientists perceive their relationship with one another in the reporting of the GM debate?

3.3.2 Why Interviews?

It is first necessary to define what is meant by the term interview as it can be used to describe a number of differing forms of gathering data (Seidman, 2006). First interviews can be differentiated according to whether they are structured or unstructured. Structured interviews are often used in survey research and consist of all participants being asked a series of identical questions. In contrast unstructured or qualitative interviews are unique conversations where, “researchers match their questions to what each interviewee knows and is willing to share” (Rubin & Rubin, 2005, p. 4).

The aim of the qualitative interview is to discover the meanings and perceptions actors give to the processes and events in which they are involved. In this case the interviews allow journalists and scientific news sources to put forward their perspectives on the GM debate and their experience of being involved in the news reporting process.

Rubin and Rubin (2005) have developed a schema of nine different types of qualitative interview that are differentiated along two dimensions: “breadth of focus (narrow or broad) and subject of focus (meaning or description)” (p. 5). The choice amongst these different interview types will depend upon the object of the research and the questions asked. In this case a number of investigative interviews were conducted. According to Rubin and Rubin (2005) investigative interviews are narrowly focussed and deal with events or processes. As such they are well suited to analyse how journalists and scientific news sources experienced

85

their part in the reporting of the GM debate and their interactions with one another during this process.

3.3.3 Interview Participants

The research aimed to interview a number of journalists involved in the reporting of the GM debate between January 1, 1998 and February 28, 2002 and also to interview a number of scientific news sources cited in those stories. Rubin and Rubin (2005) argue that participants should be both experienced and knowledgeable, and that in disputes like the GM debate potential participants can be identified through watching television or reading newspapers. This was the approach taken, with most of the scientific participants being identified through citations found in newspaper stories or through watching television news. The journalist participants were found in a similar manner by reading the by-lines on the GM stories being analysed. In the case of one journalist a snowballing technique was used, as her name came up in a number of interviews as a knowledgeable and experienced source and, therefore, it was decided to include her as an interview participant. The term participant is used to reflect the, “active involvement that occurs in an in-depth interview” (Seidman, 2006, p. 14).

Most of the identified participants had busy schedules and worked for large organisations. In discussing access to participants from large organisations, Buchanan, Boddy and McCalman (1988) argue for the researcher taking an opportunistic approach to gain access. They also offered five pieces of advice on negotiating such access:

First allow for this to take time. Second, use friends and relatives where possible. Third use non-threatening language when explaining the nature and purpose of your study. Fourth, deal positively with respondents’ reservations with respect to time and confidentiality. Fifth offer a report of your findings (p. 56).

As the researcher was a novice to the field of biotechnology and genetic modification and also knew no one working in the field, the use of friends or relatives or indeed sponsors was not an option to gain access to the possible participants identified. Therefore, once identified, the possible participants were written to directly, inviting them to take part in the research. The letter outlined the purpose of the research, the probable length of the interviews, 40 to 45 minutes, and the general areas of interest for the research. The issues of confidentiality and consent were also covered in the letter. Those wishing to take part were asked to make

86

contact with the researcher. Where a response was not received within 14 days, a follow-up phone call was made.

All participants contacted granted the researcher an interview. This was an exceptional result and not only indicated the generosity of those interviewed but may have also indicated the importance of the topic to those willing to be participants. Interviews were arranged to suit the participants’ schedules, with some interviews being rescheduled due to unforeseen circumstances. As Buchanan et al. (1988) state, “the practice of field research is the art of the possible” (p. 55) and, therefore, interviews were conducted as soon as opportunities presented themselves.

In all, 11 interviews were conducted; five with experienced science writers covering the GM debate, four with scientists involved in genetic modification research and cited in GM news stories, and two with members of Life Sciences Network (LSN), a pro-GM science lobby group convened to promote the case for GM during the Royal Commission. A list of the participants is shown in Table 4 below.

87 Table 4: Interview Participants in the Research

Name Occupation Experience

Anne Beston Environmental journalist – New

Zealand Herald newspaper

16 years as a journalist, with three years as an environmental journalist

Dr Tony Connor Scientist – Lincoln University and

Crop and Food

21 years working in the field of genetic modification

Dr Paula Jameson Professor Plant Biology - Dept. of

Molecular Biosciences, Massey University

13 years working in the field of genetic modification of plants

Veronica Meduna Science journalist - Radio New

Zealand

Nine years as a newspaper and radio science journalist

Dr William Rolleston Medical Practitioner – Chairman of

the Life Sciences Network

10 years involvement in the biotechnology industry

Alan Samson Science journalist – The Dominion

newspaper. (Currently employed at Massey University in the Journalism program)

30 years as a journalist, with 10 years experience as a science journalist

Dr Barry Scott Professor Molecular Genetics –

Dept. of Molecular Biosciences, Massey University

23 years working in the field of genetic modification

Aaron Smale Journalist – Manawatu Standard Four years as a journalist

Anna Wallace Rural/Science journalist –

Manawatu Standard

23 years as a journalist

Dr Ian Warrington Plant physiologist, Professor of

Horticulture, Massey University, 2002 – CEO of Hort. Research during Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, 2001

35 years as a plant physiologist

Francis Weavers Executive director - Life Sciences

Network

Involved with the Life Sciences Network from its beginning in 1999; previously worked as a journalist

As shown above, the professional experience of the scientists ranged between 35 and 13 years. The latter figure only represented Dr Jameson’s involvement with GM per se, as her overall scientific career spans a longer period. Also as shown above, the journalists’ industry experience ranged between 30 and four years. Both of the Life Sciences Network participants had been with the organisation since its inception in 1999.

88

The interviews were all face-to-face and scheduled for approximately 40 - 45 minutes, but in reality, most were 60 to 70 minutes in length. Most interviews were conducted at the interviewee’s place of work, with one interview conducted at the interviewee’s home. One interview had to be rescheduled a number of times due to the ill health of the interviewee concerned, and one interview was cut short due to prior commitments for the interviewee. All interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed by the researcher and an assistant. Once transcribed all interviewees were given a copy of the transcript and invited to veto any part. No interviewee altered any part of their transcript.

3.3.4 Interview Questions

Developing questions is a critical part of the interview process. Initially the researcher must think about the topic under investigation and what it is they wish to understand, and, therefore, what questions should be asked of the participants (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).

Patton (2002) identifies six different types of questions that can be asked of participants about any given topic in the past, present and future tense. These are experience/behaviour, opinion/value, feeling, knowledge, sensory, and background/demographic questions. The most useful types of questions for this study were experience/behaviour (what they have done and do), opinion/value (about their opinions and values) and background/demographic (identifying characteristics of the person, for example, their experience in their chosen field).

Each interview began by outlining how each interview would proceed, first, asking about the length of time the participant had been working in his or her particular position. This question served a number of purposes. First, it was a relatively non-threatening question which aided in establishing rapport. Next it established the experience of each participant and avoided the common mistake of immediately asking about a hot topic before rapport was established (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992).

As semi-structured, investigative interviews were used, interview schedules or guides were developed. A copy of the schedule is contained in Appendix 2. However, the question order did not always remain the same as sometimes participants in their reply to one question answered a following question. As Seidman (2006) argues the main job of the interviewer, “is to listen actively and to move the interview forward as much as possible by building on

89

what the participant has begun to share” (p. 81). Strict adherence to an interview schedule would have impeded this process.

Once each question set had been drafted it was checked and revised, with each question being checked for clarity and neutrality. Glesne and Peshkin (1992) argue that where possible, interview questions should be piloted; therefore, the question schedule for scientists was piloted in an interview with a researcher from Massey University, before being taken into the field and some minor adjustments were made to the wording. It was agreed that this interview was not to be included in the results of this thesis. However, the question schedule for journalists was not able to be piloted in the same manner, and these questions were revised after the first interview, with some rewording adjustments being made. Glesne and Peshkin (1992) note that when questions cannot be piloted before beginning interviews, the first few interviews can be used as a basis for making adjustments.

As stated, the first question while establishing the knowledge and experience of the participant also aided in the establishment of rapport. Rapport in interviewing reduces the distance and anxiety, and increases the trust between the researcher and participant thereby leading to more successful interviews (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992). While there is no set of steps to achieving rapport (Glesne & Peshkin, 1992), researchers whose appearance and actions are appropriate to the setting and who actively listen with empathy to what the participant is saying will more likely gain rapport (Buchanan et al., 1988; Rubin & Rubin, 2005). It is important to note that to gain rapport with a participant does not mean that the participant necessarily has to like you. As Glesne and Peshkin (1992) argue, “a relationship characterized by rapport is marked by confidence and trust but not necessarily by liking” (p. 94).