In-depth interviews

In-depth interviews were selected in order to collect qualitative data from key stakeholders responsible for responding to crime threats and using mobile phone networks to prevent outbreaks of violence. This method enabled the researcher to engage with these key informants though a flexible, discursive format (Kvale, 1996) and to examine their experiences and attitudes to mobile phones as crime-enhancing or crime-reducing tools. Guion, Diehl and

McDonald note that in-depth interviews, “are most appropriate for situations in which you want to ask open-ended questions that elicit depth of information from relatively few people” (2011, p. 1), and interviews were useful in this study for several purposes. Some interviews were conducted to facilitate the

methodological design of the study. These occurred prior to the FGDs and survey administration, in order to collect feedback on the planned data collection instruments and survey implementation methods. This included

soliciting advice on the local context, culture, research etiquette, and attitudes to surveys amongst the general public. The data informs the subsequent analysis of the guardianshipof mobile phone networks, responsibility for the prevention of mobile phone crime and mechanisms designed to enhance the reporting and prevention of other types of crime utilising mobile phone networks.

The sampling method chosen for the in-depth interviews was purposive. The initial identification of interview participants was based on a thorough review and analysis of the available literature and institutional publications in order to identify information-rich individuals, a technique termed ‘critical case sampling’ (Patton, 1990) in which researchers select, “…those (individuals) that can make

110

a point quite dramatically or are, for some reason, particularly important in the scheme of things” (Patton, 1990, p. 174). Each informant was then asked for recommendations of other individuals who might be able to provide valuable information. Patton describes this snowball sampling as, “an approach for locating information-rich key informants or critical cases” (1990, p. 176).

Each potential interviewee was first contacted by telephone or email, informed of the research aims and affiliations, and asked if they were willing to meet to discuss their views and experiences on the use of mobile telephony for enhancing or reducing the perceived security of users. Interviews were then arranged and conducted with willing participants, face-to-face in their

workplaces. In Kenya, the interviews were semi-structured using an interview guide provided in tables 2 and 3. The semi-structured interview method was used in order to, “help the interviewer focus on topics that are important to explore, maintain consistency across interviews with different respondents, and stay on track during the interview process” (Guion, et al., 2011, p. 2). In

Uganda, the interviews were unstructured in order to facilitate a flexible approach to the collection of data from a diverse range of study participants, conducted under challenging logistical conditions within Kyangwali Refugee settlement.

De-briefing interviews were also conducted with each of the research assistants involved in the administration of questionnaires (transcripts are included in Appendix 5). These data are used in part to critically engage with the reliability and content of the survey data collected, and in part to facilitate critical

reflection on the methodological approach, instruments, and sample (Araali, 2011).

Key characteristics of the in-depth interviews were open-ended questions (often beginning why or how) which encouraged respondents to expound on a

particular topic, a semi-structured format which allowed a conversational flow to develop, and the use of active listening skills to interpret and seek clarity

(Guion, et al., 2011). Particular questions, termed probes, were asked to encourage respondents to add detail, elaborate on or clarify their responses (Patton, 1990) when necessary. For example, participants were asked to explain their meaning if responses were unclear, to provide more information

111

about a particular topic of interest, or to add more detail about particularly relevant comments and responses.

Concerning the structure of the interviews, following Guion, Diehl and McDonald (2011) initial introductions included a clear explanation of the study purpose. This aimed to put the participant at ease, and furthermore Walsham (2006) notes that understanding the researcher’s agenda increases openness and willingness to participate. Based on interpretive research conducted in sixteen countries, Walsham suggests that interview participants are generally willing to discuss their personal and professional experiences with,

…reasonable openness and honesty, provided that they perceive the researcher’s sincerity of interest, feel that they understand the researcher’s agenda, and trust the researcher’s statements on confidentiality. (Walsham, 2006, p. 323)

Accordingly, clarifying the purpose and boundaries of the research prior to conducting interviews was critical, and respondents were given the opportunity to ask questions and engage with the topic of the research at the beginning of each interview. The discussion topics and prompts developed in the interview guide were introduced in a flexible manner according to the flow of each discussion, with the sequence largely guided by interviewees’ responses. The question of whether or not to record interviews is also a relevant consideration for this study. Guion, Diehl and McDonald (2011) suggest obtaining permission for audio recording, recommended in combination with written field notes containing observations of both verbal and non-verbal behaviour as well as personal reflections about the interview. However, there are benefits and costs associated with recording interviews. Recording ensures the collection of a true record of the interview, frees the researcher to

concentrate fully and enables the researcher to return to the transcript later and select direct quotes (Walsham, 2006). However, recording devices are likely to reduce trust and make respondents less open and honest, and only provide a partial record of the full spectrum of verbal and non-verbal cues (ibid).

Nevertheless, where participants granted permission interviews were digitally recorded. These recordings were subsequently transcribed and supplemented by written field notes.

112 4.5.1.1 Interview Guide

Two interview guides were developed for use in Kenya: one for interviewing representatives of organisations using mobile tools for peace-building and violence prevention (see table 2) and one for local research assistants after the administration of questionnaires (table 3). As stated previously, interview guides were not used in Uganda.

Table 2: Interview discussion themes in Kenya No. Discussion Theme

1. Background information about their organisational affiliation and objectives in using mobile phones to prevent, mitigate or de-escalate violence

2. Reasons for using mobile phones for peace-building 3. Users and scope of the mechanism

4. Reflections on the impact and effectiveness of the mechanism

6. Community responses and informal communication of message content 7. Core concerns and priorities of organisation

Table 3: Interview discussion themes with local research assistants in Kenya No. Discussion Theme

1. Background information about the locations of data collection 2. Overall impressions relating to administering the questionnaires 3. Impression of participants’ responses to the questionnaires 4. Surprising or unexpected experiences

5. Effect of administering the questionnaires on personal attitudes 6. Most memorable experience

7. Challenges 4.5.1.2 Limitations

In-depth, semi-structured interviews provide a method through which to access detailed information from a small sample of respondents. The interview

participants were selected according to their relevance for the present study, and provide valuable data about the relationship between mobile phones, crime and crime prevention. However, they do not provide a representative sample of relevant organisations, nor do the individuals selected represent their

organisations in any formal capacity. Furthermore, the participants’ responses are likely to be informed by a number of factors, ranging from the timing and location of the interview, their personal opinions and attitudes, their

113

expectations regarding the use of the data collected, and the demeanour and non-verbal signals of the interviewer. These limitations are addressed in part through the use of an interview protocol including clear and standardised introductions (Kvale, 1996). Primarily however, these are mitigated through maintaining awareness of, and sensitivity to, these potential biases. For example, conducting interviews in comfortable locations during a convenient time for the participant, explaining clearly how the data are analysed and used, and providing assurances regarding anonymity for any sensitive content

provided.

Three recorded interview transcripts are included in Appendix 8, and the issue is discussed in depth in Chapter Seven. The remaining interviews were

recorded by hand, supplemented by additional notes recorded immediately after each interview. Accordingly, the interview quotes provided in the Results

chapter may not be precise verbatim reproductions of the interviewee’s statements as they are based on these hand-recorded notes.

Despite these challenges, interviews nevertheless provide opportunities to collect in-depth information from key stakeholders, both to inform the study and to contribute to refinements to the other data collection instruments.