I chose to undertake approximately twenty semi-structured interviews for each case study. I selected particular individuals on the basis that I wanted to track the history and arguments o f the issues in question. I felt that structured interviews were too restricting and would not allow me to obtain the type o f data I was looking for. May considers that structured interviews are dependent upon good pilot work and upon the interviewer being similar to the target group in terms o f sharing a similar culture so that the interpretation o f the questions and the dynamics o f the interview do not vary to a great extent.6 He quotes Benney and Hughes as saying
‘Where languages are too diverse, where common values are too few, where the fear o f talking to strangers is too great, there the interview based on a standardised questionnaire calling for a few standardised answers may not be applicable. Those who venture into such situations may have to invent new modes o f
interviewing.’7
For these reasons semi-structured interviews seemed more appropriate. Although I still had a list o f pre-set questions, I used these as the basis for the ensuing discussion rather than making coverage o f these issues an end in its own right. This allowed me to probe the interviewee about particular points that I considered relevant as the interview progressed. As May points out
6 May, T. (1993). S ocial research: issues, methods an d process. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. p92
7 Benney, M. and Hughes, E. (1984). Method: evidence and inference - evidence and inference in ethnomethodology. In, Button, G., (ed)., Ethnom ethodology and the human sciences',218. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., quoted in May, T. (1993). S ocial research: issues, methods an d process. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. p92
‘Qualitative information about the topic can then be recorded by the
interviewer who can then seek both clarification and elaboration
on the answers given. This allows the interviewer to have more
latitude to probe beyond the answers.’8
May also considers that the context o f the semi-structured interview is an important aspect o f the process. He says
‘Given this greater degree o f latitude offered to the interviewer and the greater need to understand the context and content o f the interview, while trained interviewers may be used, researchers themselves often conduct the interviews.’9
I arranged the interviews in the location o f choice o f the interviewees. This usually meant they took place in their work environment although sometimes it took place in their homes, depending on whom the interviewee was representing. Although this meant a lot o f travel on my part it was beneficial in that the interviewees were more relaxed in familiar surroundings and it gave me an opportunity to evaluate their surroundings.
While focused interviews or unstructured interviews may have provided detailed accounts o f the interviewee’s particular concerns, and allowed them more freedom to expand in areas o f interest to themselves, given the time constraints involved in my interviewing schedule it was important to at least have the bones o f the information I hoped to elicit. As Robson states:
8 May, T. (1993). S ocial research: issues, methods and process. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. p93
9 May, T. (1993). S ocial research: issues, methods and process. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press. p93
‘Interviewers have their shopping list o f topics and want to get responses to them, but as a matter o f tactics they have greater freedom in the sequencing o f questions, in their exact wording, and in the amount o f time and attentions given to different topics.’10
Again, I felt that semi-structured interviews were the best format to use as they allowed me the control o f pre-set questions with the freedom to deviate and address issues which I had not foreseen arising. In this way I was able to obtain a huge amount o f relevant data.
Another method I considered being inappropriate was self-completed questionnaires. An advantage o f these is that they are time and effort efficient for the researcher as they can be copied, circulated and completed in a lot less time than it takes to conduct the same number o f interviews. However, for my purposes there are many
disadvantages. I would have had to conduct a postal survey which generally has a high rate o f non-response. The questions would have to be very precise and could not allow for the respondent to expand in a lot o f detail on every question. Given the range o f people I interviewed one standard questionnaire would not have been appropriate and so a number o f different questionnaires would have had to be created for the different interviewees. This would have been extremely time-consuming and potentially counter-productive as I would have been anticipating the answers from the different interviewees in the questions I asked.
As this was my first venture in conducting interviews I was a little anxious about my first few. In order to minimise any potential problems I carefully selected who I
10 Robson, C. (1993). Real w orld research: a resource f o r social scientists an d practitioner- researchers. Oxford: Blackwell. p237
would interview first. I chose people who I felt would be sympathetic to the aims o f my research and who would be open in their replies to my questions. These were environmentalists and academics. After these first few interviews I went on to conduct interviews with representatives o f industry, o f government and regulatory bodies. By this stage I had refined the way in which I raised particular topics and was confident in my ability to inteiject when the content o f the interview appeared to be wavering.
I interviewed approximately 20 individuals for each case study.11 These people were selected on the basis o f their involvement with the issue in question. Friends o f the Earth gave me a lot o f names and contacts o f people who would be relevant to talk to. I also looked at the participants lists o f various conferences and workshops in order to ascertain whether I had missed any important voices. With regards the radioactive waste disposal case study I contacted a lot o f people who had been involved in the Nirex Inquiry (discussed in detail in chapter five on radioactive waste disposal) as well as organisations who have dealings with the nuclear industry in the UK who were not directly involved with that inquiry. With regards the endocrine disrupting
chemicals case study I selected people based on their involvement in workshops on endocrine disruption or their statutory obligations for particular areas o f public concern, for example, water or food. I interviewed people from a broad range of organisations in order that I had representations from a range o f different interest groups. These people were individuals who have been fairly vocal in the discussions o f the issues o f concern and who could be said to be the key players in the debate. All the people I interviewed I spoke to in their capacity as a representative o f a particular
organisation as opposed to their ‘individual selves’. I was not trying to obtain individual’s accounts o f what the key issues were but rather I wanted to know what particular organisations and statutory bodies had to say on the issues. In order to acquire an broad range o f opinions I ensured that I had representatives who could speak for government, industry and non-governmental organisations.
I used a combination o f tape-recording the interviews and taking notes as I found this the most effective method o f eliciting detailed responses from my interviewees. Leaving a tape running meant that I did not miss anything that was said and the majority o f my interviewees were happy to be recorded. Taking notes myself seemed to encourage the interviewees to forget about the tape and to concentrate on the questions. It also had the advantage o f prompting the interviewees to continue talking while I was note-taking as I had observed that when I was solely taping the interviews the interviewee would stop more quickly in anticipation o f the next question.
My choice o f methodology relates very clearly to my theoretical use o f interests theory. By conducting semi-structured interviews I gave my interviewees the opportunity to talk about the issues they felt were relevant to the decision-making process. This meant that some o f their interests were expressly identified by themselves, a factor that addresses one o f the criticisms aimed at the interests approach, that the researcher identifies pre-determined interests o f their own
conjuring. Additionally, some interviewees expressed opinions about the embedded interests o f other participants in the decision-making processes under study and this gave me a starting point for identifying the underlying interests in the rest o f my data. Had I conducted structured interviews or used questionnaires the criticism o f
searching for particular interests would be more real as it would have been very difficult to construct questions that would not be seen as leading the interviewee in a particular direction. Semi-structured interviews supported by documented material was the obvious methodology to use so as not to fall into this trap as identified by critics o f the interests approach.