I NTERVIEW  STRATEGY

The interview strategy can take on different forms and yield a variety of information, depending on the person being interviewed. The interviewee’s own position in relation to the policy process can be very different, and this is what determines the type of experiences and perspectives that are introduced for discussion. Consequently, the interviewee’s status as a scientist, a bureaucrat, or a powerless citizen holds different implications for the way an interview proceeds.

With this in mind, different questions were put to the different groups of actors. That is, during my engagement with Board scientists I asked them a different set of questions from those I used in the Ghaziabad case study. The protocol followed was to send a short one-page brief by email, outlining the research topic and main questions, in order for respondents to have some knowledge of the topic prior to the interview. Because of

the nature of the organisations under study and the difficulties inherent in gaining access in bureaucratic contexts, often more than one appointment was necessary to secure an interview. Sending out briefs in advance did not always guarantee that that they were read or that respondents were always prepared to answer questions directly. Generally, it was necessary to be flexible when using prepared questions, and sometimes

respondents were encouraged to speak more freely. Very often scientists and officials were reluctant to give their consent for their real names to be disclosed. For this reason quotes from interviews with officials and scientists used in this thesis are attributed to their roles and functions but their real names have been replaced with pseudonyms in order to protect their anonymity. An example of the interview schedule is provided in Appendix 3.

Most interviews were ‘semi-structured’, where detailed questions are formulated ahead of time, starting with more general questions or topics. Should the interviewee introduce new information that was not part of the proposed interview plan, the interview could alter its course to accommodate them (Creswell, 2009). This was crucial when

interviewing Board scientists because although members shared similar views, they reported their individual experiences, influenced by their positions and specialised functions in the organisation. It is noteworthy that for example discussions with laboratory workers provided deeper insights into scientific ‘uncertainties’ when measuring water quality in the lab and comparing the findings with regulatory

‘standards’ (these features of the Board’s work did not figure as prominently during arranged interviews). Senior members who had been in the organisation for longer were able to elaborate on the organisational history and its relationship to other actors such as the MoEF. As it was difficult to anticipate the kind of information the respondent would be willing to share, it required openness and scope for re-adjustment of the questions during the interview process.

In some interviews I applied a more ‘conversational’ style of engagement. Particularly during my first visit to Delhi, ‘elite’ interviews with academics, policy practitioners and other experts allowed me to get a first-hand view of how problems regarding water quality are understood by those working outside government. In fairly unstructured interviews, I also approached retired officials, scientists, and engineers who were in a position to discuss issues from the ‘outside’, recalling their own past professional

experiences, and revealing their personal views of the contemporary situation. This type of engagement was facilitated by using open-ended questions suggested by the

researcher or that arose spontaneously during the interview (i.e. ‘Tell me more about...’,

‘Could you elaborate on the point you just made?’ etc.). These kinds of interviews often tended to take significantly longer than others, sometimes lasting several hours.

The majority of interviews with public officials, scientists and other policy practitioners were conducted in English. However, people from poorer groups residing in urban villages who were regularly affected by environmental pollution often responded in Hindi. As mentioned previously, Sushil normally translated these for me during the course of an interview. Obviously this placed restrictions on the interview strategy, since not all subtle meanings and details can be translated on the spot. Being aware from the start that Hindi being the main language spoken in the villages could affect the quality of the data obtained, I customised the fieldwork strategy accordingly.

Discussions were held with Sushil after walking around the locality and gaining a better sense of the environmental issues affecting the settlement. After identifying the specific sensitive areas such as waste management efficiency, use of water resources, and local sources of pollution (e.g. proximity to industries was regularly flagged as a community concern), interviews were then conducted in an exploratory way, encouraging village residents to present their views on these problems. The point was therefore not to ask respondents abstract questions about how they felt about ‘water quality’ (as this is more of a scientific term) but to infer those problems and concerns that were of interest to the residents.

Information drawn from interviews and used in the form of quotes is a central

component of this thesis. Quotes are taken from the interviews, and are referenced in the thesis in the form of footnotes. The overall aim has been to refer to quotations in order to illustrate how different aspects of water quality were emphasised by different groups of actors. Interview quotes are also utilised for illustrating how involved actors portray institutional relationships and how formal responsibility is shared between the actors involved in the enactment of formal policies and interventions. Although only a part of the interview material is presented in this thesis, the bulk has had a supporting role in deepening my own understanding of the issues and in formulating the key arguments.