Household and professional practitioner interviews

Given this research is informed by a social constructivist perspective which holds that we live in a world of potentially multiple inter-subjective social realities, interviews were used to understand how the different Trinity Close stakeholders experienced particular events and interpreted their practices. Whilst revealing of action, using participant observation alone (see Section 3.3.3) would have overlooked peoples’ understandings of their ‘doings’ and ‘sayings’. Using semi-structured interviews provided a chance for

‘interviewees to construct their own accounts of their experiences by describing and explaining their lives in their own words’ (Valentine, 1997: 111).

Atkinson and Coffey (2003) suggest that interaction and communication that occur during interviewing are expressions of action or ‘enactments’. Halkier (2010) suggests that these enactments are revealed through interviews - as well as by other types of qualitative data (e.g. focus groups, research diaries etc.) – and can be used to describe and reflect on the ‘doings’ and ‘sayings’ of social life. Furthermore,

‘[i]f different interview participants provide different versions of the event or practice, that is normal and to be expected. Indeed, it is precisely those differences that are of analytic interest to the researcher, as they suggest… what

is meaning-ful about the event [or practice] to each person speaking’

(Schwartz-Shea and Yanow, 2012: 41, emphasis in original).

As such, by accumulating and analysing different interviewee accounts, I was able to explore where differences in respondents’ experiences and interpretations lay, and their significance for the composition, performance and relations of practices at Trinity Close.

Some researchers question the appropriateness of interviews for researching everyday life arguing that they fail to access ‘unspeakable’ aspects of social practices and are potentially inaccurate as peoples’ accounts change over time (e.g. Bissell, 2010; Macpherson, 2010;

Spinney, 2009: 829). However, I agree with Hitchings (2012: 61) who argues against those who claim that interviews, ‘can only ever provide an unsatisfactorily washed out account of what previously took place’ (c.f. Thrift and Dewsbury, 2000). Hitchings contends that participants are ‘entirely able to talk about relatively mundane actions, such as continuing to sit in [a thermally regulated] office or putting blankets over knees at home [to stay warm], that may, in some part, usually be performed unthinkingly’

(Hitchings, 2012: 65). In the same way, whilst at first I found it awkward to ask about the very mundane aspects of peoples’ lives, as my interviewees realised the intention of the interview was precisely that, they opened up, and seemingly enjoyed taking me through their domestic routines and/or professional experiences. To optimise the interview process, I sought to: be clear about the purpose of the research project; present alternatives as prompts if responses were not forthcoming; use a serial interview approach and attend to respondents’ reactions, tailoring my questions appropriately (ibid.: 66).

The first steps in the interview process were to define my sampling approach and to recruit interviewees. I wanted to hold repeat conversations with the tenants of all twelve Trinity Close properties to understand how, if at all, their existing housing practices interacted with the low-energy housing initiative – i.e. purposive sampling (Bernard, 2002). As previously discussed, when I undertook pilot interviews between 1^st March – 27^th April 2012, Adapt initially acted as the gatekeeper for establishing contact with the Trinity Close tenants. It was subsequently agreed that I could approach any remaining households by door knocking. I followed up these interviews approximately one year later, in April 2013, to understand how, if at all, residents’ heat comfort practices, and their relations with other domestic practices, had changed (see Table 3.5).

Shaded cells = household participated in data collection process.

* Trinity Close household reference anonymised (i.e. different to property number).

Table 3.5 – Qualitative data collection undertaken at Trinity Close properties

When enlisting professional practitioner interviewees, I used a combination of

purposive (Bernard, 2002), snowball (Seale and Filmer, 1999) and theoretical sampling (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). In other words, as well as targeting stakeholders that met particular requirements (purposive sampling) (for example, representatives from institutions directly involved with implementing the Trinity Close initiative), I asked my interviews whether they could recommend others that I should talk to (snowball sampling). To some degree I also selected what data to collect on the basis of codes and findings emerging from the ongoing data analysis process (theoretical sampling) (see Section 3.3.7). This data collection approach helped me to develop a 'systems of practice' conceptualisation for studying low-energy housing.

Table 3.6 lists the interviewed Trinity Close stakeholders and their formal role(s) in the housing initiative. In total thirteen interviews were conducted with professional practitioners (including one exchange completed using emailed questions and responses) between the dates 10^th December 2012 and 19^th June 2013. Whilst I did not interview a representative from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), I received a delayed response from Rt. Hon. Don Foster M.P.

Household reference* (including one mutual exchange)

Interview Date H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10 H11 H12

on 3^rd October 2013 (see Appendix B). Analysing my interview data between visits to the field (see Section 3.3.7), I stopped conducting interviews when my theoretical categories started to reappear and were producing diminishing returns, i.e. when I had reached ‘theoretical saturation’ (Strauss, 1987).

Table 3.6 – Interviewed Trinity Close stakeholders

No. Role(s) Description of role(s) Organisation Role(s) in Trinity Close initiative

Professional practitioner ref. (PP-) 1 Politicians Specific roles in

Government related to

3 Developers Providers of (private and) social housing.

5 Consultants Provide expert advice to assist with the build process, & energy-saving advice as part of the initiative. Trialled low-carbon technologies in CSH level six properties.

H1 to H12

Second, I developed, and continually refined, interview topic guides (Seale, 1999:

206) for the household and professional interviews (see Appendices C and D). Topics listed in these guides emerged from my field notes and were shaped by ideas and concepts gathered during the literature review (see Table 3.7). In line with my social constructivist stance, rather than developing a prescriptive survey or protocol, the topic guide acted as a loose checklist, to which I could refer, that would encourage each interviewee to talk about particular themes. To ensure informal discussions, I posed open questions (Seale and Filmer, 1999:130) and my line of inquiry followed experiences and interpretations raised by the participant. Sometimes however, I dispensed with my interview protocol guide, and followed off-topic themes, as suggested by the interviewees, that seemed pressing and relevant to my research. As such, my role was explicitly ‘non-directive’ (Seale, 1999: 207).

Table 3.7 – Themes of Trinity Close interview topic guides

Whilst professional practitioner interviews were undertaken at the interviewees’

place of work, or at the University of East Anglia, both relatively neutral spaces, the household practitioner interviews were held at WHA tenants’ homes – where ‘most of what matters to people is happening’ (Miller, 2001:1). Conducting ethnographic research in people’s homes is far from easy and, whilst practice researchers have spent up to 24 hours observing people at home (Higginson et al., 2013), this, to me, involved an unacceptable intrusion into householders’ private lives and intimate spaces.

Indeed, at times, my questions, particularly regarding heat comfort management,

Household pilot Household repeat Professional practitioner

• Details of previous property &

comparison with TC

• First impressions of TC

• Induction process

• Interactions with low-energy technologies as part of everyday life

• Social interactions with respect to managing domestic practices

• Experiences of life at TC

• Management of heat comfort practices & related practices

• Noticeable changes in domestic practices (particularly heat comfort)

• Impressions of governance of TC

• Opinion on Phase Two TC

• Professional background

• CSH and best practice in building low-energy homes

• Organisational involvement &

objectives for TC

• Designing & implementing TC

• Monitoring & appraising TC

• Behavioural change

• Resident heat comfort management

• Organisational relations during TC

• Initiative outcomes & findings

• Phase Two TC

were necessarily personal, and I had to work with participants to overcome any social awkwardness. Rather than undertake a traditional immersive ethnography therefore, I sought to gain insight into the residents’ (low-energy) housing practices using a serial and mixed methods data collection approach. I also focused on the practice of (managing) heat comfort, and sought to understand how this activity related to, and influenced, other domestic practices.

Prior to conducting each of the interviews I explained the broad purpose of my research and provided the interviewees with an information sheet summarising my research goals (see Appendices E and F). I recorded each interview with an MP3 player, apart from one in which my recording device would not work. I gave each participant the option not to be recorded, also asking them to sign a consent and release form (see Section 3.3.6 and Appendix G). After each interview, I wrote up brief notes on the conversation, the setting, interviewees’ responses and body language, and any analytical or theoretical thoughts arising. I then transcribed the interviews verabatim (see Appendices H & I for an extract from a household and professional practitioner interview transcript).