Interviews: objectives, sampling and location

The interviews to the main stakeholders were a key aspect in the development of the analysis³⁴. They enabled deeper insight into the role of the existing networks in the making of the policy and therefore relate particularly to hypotheses 3 (the ‘governance’ of policy networks) and 4 (networks have different levels of power). The interviews sought to understand policy-makers’

attitudes towards asylum and towards pro-asylum advocacy groups (and vice-versa), how

33 The main sources for media articles in the UK were the BBC website and The Guardian; in Italy they were La Repubblica, Il Corriere della Sera, La Padania, and La Stampa.

34 See Appendices 1, 2, 3 and 4 for the list of interviewees in Italy and in the UK.

68

individual parts of the network interacted with each other, their influence and power, relationships, and lobbying.

The participants were politicians, civil servants and representatives from the most influential national and international non-governmental organisations, including the UNHCR, charities, trade unions, employers’ organisations and Think Tanks, all of which played a role in the making of the legislations under examination. They did not constitute a random sample but a deliberate or ‘purposeful selection’ of individuals or ‘élites³⁵’ who had considerable influence on the policy process at parliamentary level and policies outcomes and might be more “at ease and talk freely with the researcher such that a great deal can be learned about the research question” (Baxter and Eyles 1997, 513; see also Maxwell 2005). The main goals were to achieve: “representativeness or typicality of the settings, individuals or activities selected” and

“to illuminate the reasons for differences between settings and individuals” (Baxter and Eyles 1997, 89-90). Because the main setting in this case was the parliament, it made sense to interview the most representative actors in the arena, those who had the most direct knowledge of the policy making process.

In total, 41 people were interviewed in two separate interview rounds. During the first round in 2008, 12 people were able to participate in the UK³⁶ (mainly from NGOs but also two civil servants and one MP) and 13 in Italy³⁷ (from NGOs and two civil servants). In the second round in 2011, 7 people took part in the interviews in the UK³⁸ and 9 in Italy³⁹ (in both cases these were policy-makers, civil servants, and one Italian charity worker).

The majority of the interviews in the UK were held in London in October 2008 and then again between January and March 2011. In Italy most interviews were held in Rome, seat of the government and many NGO offices. There were two exceptions. One was the interview held with Gianfranco Schiavone, responsible of the refugee office of the Italian Consortium of Solidarity (ICS) based in Trieste, Northern Italy. Mr Schiavone was interviewed the first time in

35 Politicians are defined as ‘élite’ a) because they have a certain degree of control on migration policies due to an interest (stake) or their background; and b) “by their exclusivity” (Desmond 2004, 264).

36 In total, 23 people were contacted.

37 In total, 27 people were contacted.

38 In total, 19 people were contacted.

39 In total, 20 people were contacted.

69

December 2008 and a second time to clarify some aspects which emerged during the analysis of some documents in February 2012. In both occasions the interviews happened over the telephone due to the impracticality of a trip to Trieste. The second exception was in the case of migration expert Sergio Briguglio who works and lives in Frascati, not far from Rome. The interview was face-to-face.

The interviews were semi-structured as they allow more flexibility for the respondents increasing “validity of the responses” (Aberbach and Rockman 2002, 674; Peabody et al. 1990).

Overall, dates for meetings were set usually within one or two days in Italy and two to three weeks in the UK. In the UK people replied on both occasions either directly or through their secretary. Refusals were mainly due to lack of time or detailed knowledge. One MP in the UK declined on account of his retirement while another one thought he did not have much to say despite his repeated interventions as recorded in Hansard. In Italy instead, not all the potential interviewees replied while those who did, were mostly able to meet up.

On average, a good rapport with the interviewees was established. This enabled more depth in the questioning and also resulted in the participants giving access to other interviewees, creating the so called snowballing effect (Richards 1996). The interviewees were asked at the beginning of the interview whether they would prefer to remain anonymous. Five interviewees (two in Italy and three in the UK) out of 41 preferred not to be named. Finally, one of my anonymous informants asked to see the transcripts before including anything in the thesis.

Unfortunately, this interviewee was not at the given e-mail address anymore and could not be traced. Nevertheless, parts of the interview were included because they were informative and I felt they would not rebound on the person. Furthermore, anonymity was maintained.

The aim of the interviews was to uncover the role played by state and non-state actors in influencing the policy process.

3.1.2.1 Interviews in 2008

In the first round of interviews in 2008, a discussion guide for pro-asylum/immigration groups and one for MPs and civil servants were developed. As piloting was not possible, great care was

70

taken in developing the survey. As such, the discussion guide was bespoke to the agencies being interviewed and no issues were encountered when using it.

For the first group of interviewees, the initial questions were of a more generic nature and related to the following key themes: interests and concerns for the laws then under discussion, existing networks and the nature of their interactions, compromise, power, lobbying and influence of the mass-media and of the EU on the government.

For the second group of interviewees (MPs and civil servants), the rationale for the discussion was slightly different. Starting again with broad questions about their interest and basis of the legislation, the interviews then moved to the type of sources they used to gather their information, and the networks they belonged to. The third part related to their influence, power and compromise. Finally, as in the first case, questions on the influence of the mass-media and the EU were asked.

The interviewees belonging to NGOs and charities were contacted in the first instance by e-mail. Generic or person’s specific e-mail addresses are available on the contacts pages of the organisations. Some answered readily and provided the e-mail address of the right individual to contact or their telephone numbers, others did not. In this case a second e-mail was necessary as a follow-up.

3.1.2.2 Interviews in 2011

The second set of interviews in 2011 was to include policy-makers who were not contacted in the first instance. This second round was delayed because it was first necessary to have a good knowledge of the key issues confronted and how they were dealt with and to identify the key politicians who took part in the debates. Only after a thorough examination, interviews followed.

The politicians were chosen according to their role during the debates of the two laws. As such, some specific questions were asked towards the end of the interviews.

A second round of interviews was also necessary in the case of Italy. First the parliamentary debates were analysed and then the key issues and the key politicians and other significant actors were identified. The interviews in this case however, were over the phone and happened between January and February 2011.

71

No question was asked about the politician’s personal take on migration as this was clear by reading the parliamentary debates and the media articles.

The approach employed to contact the ‘élite’ policy-makers in this second round of interviews was different from that used to contact people in 2008. Several issues have been recognised while conducting interviews with élites. One of these is the accessibility of people who hold a privileged position in society. To gain access is not an impossible task but there are some precautions and expedients to take. First, an official letter⁴⁰ with the logo of the university was sent to the ‘gate keepers’ (Peabody et al. 1990) followed by phone calls. To the Italian policy-makers an e-mail containing a brief presentation and the official letter sent as an attachment were sent. The reason for these two different methods (letters in the UK and e-mails in Italy) was due to logistics: to avoid letters arriving too late or being lost in the process. The letters did not include detailed information but only the “general purpose” (Aberbach and Rockman 2002) of the study. They underlined at the same time, the importance of the selected individuals in bringing “unique and even essential expertise to the topic” (Delaney 2007, 212;

Richards 1996; Lilleker 2003). The importance of keeping the letter interesting but general was mainly due to the fact that asylum and immigration may be considered sensitive topics.

3.2 DATA ANALYSIS