Evaluating the success of the interviews

Data collected in the in-depth interviews provided a unique insight into the development and implementation of national food control systems. The interviewees revealed concerns and frustrations about the current situation and their plans for the future openly. Analysis of the interview transcripts was rigorous and methodical. For these reasons the in-depth interviews undertaken in Phase One of this study can be described as a success.

The biggest achievement of this work is the ability to capture insights from within intergovernmental bodies and government that not every researcher would have access. This phase of the research included two interviews with FAO officers. This organisation is integral to the international food safety community and its employees are in the unique position of being able to comment on regional and international trends, issues and challenges.

The additional nine interviews included individuals who had each been involved in the development and implementation of Food Control policy at national level, two interviewees had the role of Head of Food Control or equivalent at the time of interview. Recruiting these participants made it possible to provide a unique insight into food control at national level.

During the design of this research a balance was maintained between the unique opportunities presented to the researcher to involve participants from high level government positions who otherwise would not be included and the need to maintain methodological rigour. It was felt that overwhelmingly the value of the data collected would override the methodological compromises made. For example interviews were conducted in a variety of locations and one

79

over the telephone rather than all in a contained and similar environment and interviews were held in most cases directly after requesting them rather than being at a scheduled time and for a scheduled time.

The risk of losing the opportunity to interview these participants outweighed the possible benefits consistency would have afforded. In addition, the value of qualitative data is its ability to capture individuals’ experiences rather than attempt to undertake measurements and generalisations about wider populations. It was felt that this aspect of reliability, the ability to replicate and achieve the same results, was not applicable in the same way as it might be in other research.

Another major success of the research technique is evident in the data generated. The interview transcripts revealed personal experience, identification of weaknesses, reflection on challenges and hopes for the future. All indicating a willingness to talk openly, while being recorded about their experience in a professional capacity. In other words the interviews succeeded in eliciting in-depth qualitative data on revealing weaknesses the interviewees may wish to defend. It is this openness that provides the study with genuine value.

On reflection minor changes would be made to interview technique and question wording/order. However, it must be stressed that none of these critiques represents an attack on the validity of the research.

The opening question, ‘what, in your opinion, are the key issues in Food Control in your country?’ was on reflection misplaced. It required the interviewee to make a judgement about the fundamentals of food control in their country. All interviewees answered this question with extensive and informative answers; however the interviews may have been less fast paced

80

and less formidable with an alternative opening. This question was designed to ensure some data was comparable between the interviewees; however answers to such a question may have emerged through less direct questions anyway.

The use of the narrative interview question, ‘Can you tell me about the first time you heard about HACCP?’ was not entirely successful. Interviewees were pleased to answer this question, and responded with a smile and a long pause to recollect, perhaps because it asked something of them personally and was unexpected in this context. On reflection this question would have been better placed at the beginning of the interview, replacing the other fixed question on ‘key issues’. Using the narrative question as the first question would have provided a more relaxed start to the interview, not asking so much of the interviewees. An even more individual response from the interviewees could have been achieved.

The interview schedule was semi structured, with two set questions and room to react to the responses as they were made. This required the interviewer to react and ask new questions within the timeframe of the interview. As discussed in the previous section the timeframe was not predetermined and a certain pressure was felt to react quickly in case the interview came to an unexpected end. In some cases the questions asked could be better direct to encourage good quality data. For example in interview D after the initial question’s response about the challenges of multiple agencies the subsequent question asks about implementation issues, which is not directly related. Although the flexibility of semi-structured interviews offers some advantages it is also demanding and requires honed interview technique.

A final but unavoidable criticism is that all but two of the interviewees (interviews A-H and J) did not speak English as a first language all interviews

81

were conducted in English. All the interviewees were educated and spoke English comprehensibly, but with varying degrees of ease. This may have some effect on the responses although it is not possible to say to what extent. This weakness could not be designed out but questions the interviewer adjusted her speech to suit non-English listener. On balance it is thought this will have a minimal effect on the data quality as the discussion was not technical or requiring precise use of language, the most likely impact would be on the confidence of the interviewee and the length of answers.

As with all research criticism of some aspects of design or technique can be made. The purpose of such criticisms is to ensure a rigorous methodological approach to fieldwork, to incorporate recognition of limitations into analysis and recommendations and to acknowledge that even with careful planning research presents unforeseen challenges.