Interview Methods

For Henn, Weinstein et al. (2006), the qualitative researcher’s focus is on the concept representativeness, whereas a quantitative researcher will be focused on obtaining statistically representative samples (see 3.3.2). The first is focused upon the representativeness of concepts and being able to access the selection of relevant respondents to obtain ‘granular’ data, whilst the second is focused on gathering large number of cases using narrower questionnaires without much scope for detailed analysis case by case, with the whole being more important than the component parts (ibid).

Two initial sets of semi-structured interviews were used in order to obtain the richest data possible from experts in the car manufacturing and car sharing sectors. Bryman (2008) argues that, in semi-structured interviews, focusing on the interviewee’s point of view and going off on tangents is often encouraged to enrich data gathering. This method was chosen because it seeks to explore in detail both concepts (longevity and user-intensive), reflecting the reviewed literature, in order to bring to light their limitations and opportunities. Additional data was produced from ad hoc questions during the interviews to obtain more detailed insights contributing to the richness of data gathered.

All interviews were voice-recorded and transcribed. The analysis was performed by coding the themes chosen as appropriate and relevant (Bryman 2008) (Appendix M, Appendix F) (Sections 4.1 and 4.2). All interviewees signed an informed consent form (Appendix B, Appendix C) safeguarding any confidential information, their names and the companies they were working for at the time of the interview (Robson 2002).

To understand the role of both designers and vehicle engineers the first set covered ten exploratory interviews. Each interview was divided into four questions and conducted to assess the feasibility of longer lifespan cars and shared, use-intensive cars (Appendix E, Appendix L). This set of semi-structured interviews was undertaken between November 2014 and April 2015.

89 The exploratory interviews occurred on location where possible, or via video-call. The duration of the interviews ranged from forty minutes to one hour. An open-question approach was used (Robson 2002) in order to explore design approaches for longevity and intensity of use (e.g. Nieuwenhuis 1994, van Nes and Cramer 2006, Allwood and Cullen 2012). The questions set out to explore design barriers and opportunities for longer lifespan cars and shared, use-intensive cars and were based on the literature reviewed:

1. The process of vehicle design, and if designing for longevity and user-intensity would impact that process (Sections 2.2.1, 2.3, 2.5.1, 2.5.3 and 2.5.1).

2. The vehicles themselves; especially exploring features such as design for shared use, modularity, ease of repair, easy disassembly and upgrading (Sections 2.4.4, 2.4.5, 2.4.7, 2.5.5 and 2.5.1).

3. The feasibility of a 20-year lifespan car (Sections 2.2.1 and 2.4) and the designer/engineer approach to its design.

4. How the interviewees would design an optimal lifespan car with less material and energy (Sections 2.1, 2.2.1, 2.5, 2.5.1).

In addition to the first set of ten semi-structured interviews, two informative in-depth interviews were also undertaken with automotive business experts in opposite spectra of automotive manufacturing (Appendix D, Appendix K). One interviewee was from a traditional automotive company, the other from a start-up looking to sell the service of mobility but maintaining control of manufacture. Nine indicative questions were arranged and these interviews lasted between forty minutes and one and a half hours. The interviews occurred on location. An open-question approach was used (Robson 2002) in order to understand differences between the two business models and approaches to design, manufacture and sales.

After the analysis to the first set of exploratory in-depth interviews it was found that some of the physical barriers for longer lifespans, e.g. material and energy to produce a more durable vehicle, were deemed too challenging to overcome by most interviewees (Section 4.1), more than those found for a shared use car (Section 4.1.8). The acknowledgment of Oguchi and Fuse’s (2014) work on disparate vehicle longevities found in a number of different countries also shaped the development of the second set of exploratory interviews.

90 The second set of exploratory in-depth interviews explored the main barriers for the upscaling of car sharing in the UK and some of the views relating to intensive use cars, uncovered during the previous set of exploratory interviews, (e.g. sharing a car with strangers). This set of in-depth interviews was comprised of ten exploratory interviews and one informative interview. The duration of each interview ranged from between forty minutes to one and a half hours. The interviews took place between February and May 2016. The questions drawn for this set of exploratory in-depth interviews were taken from the literature review and the thematic analysis of intensive use cars undertaken after the first set of interviews. The latter and subsequent thematic analysis of systemic barriers and opportunities for car sharing (Section 4.2) also provided guidance for the survey questions. The informative interview was undertaken with one of the pioneers of car clubs in the UK. The interviews occurred on location, where possible, or via phone or video call.

In principle, car sharing enables passenger cars to be replaced more rapidly, by new, more efficient and safer units due to intensive use, taking advantage of greater efficiencies and reduced environmental impacts of future models sooner than the longer life car option. Nevertheless, the questionnaire explored the systemic barriers encountered by this sector throughout the years reducing it to a fringe in the market for car use. The questionnaire was divided into five main themes:

1. Barriers for users

2. Barriers for the car sharing sector

3. Barriers to the integration of car sharing into public transport 4. The role of technology

5. Time in service and mileage of vehicles used in car sharing

This last question was devised to explore if car sharing organisations were indeed utilising their main asset – passenger cars – intensively and replacing them with more efficient products (e.g. Vezzoli and Manzini 2008, Prettenthaler and Steininger 1999).