Key Informant Interviews 84

Interviews with key informants involved in policy development and service delivery planning, as well as with members of peer-based organisations that advocated on behalf of consumers of illicit drugs, served to ‘triangulate’ the findings from the analysis of the policy documents. Triangulation is a process by which ‘the same issue is investigated in a variety of ways so that different types of evidence are produced to support a particular finding’ (Minichiello et al. 1999:45). This approach enabled greater insight into the machinations of the policy development process and provided a richer set of data than could be gathered simply by the analysis of a sample of policy documents or, alternatively, by just electing to interview people who were members of what Fitzgerald and Sewards (2002) describe as ‘Australia’s drug policy

The sampling strategy for recruitment has been described as ‘purposive’ as it aimed to gain insights into the experience of people working in different capacities within partnerships. Purposive sampling enables a ‘full and sophisticated understanding of all aspects of the phenomenon’ (Rice and Ezzy 1999:42) under investigation.

Purposive sampling requires the researcher to ‘think critically about the parameters of the population we are studying’ (Silverman 2005:129) in order to ensure that it

illustrates features of the issues that are of interest to the researcher. Silverman (2005) argued that it is also important to seek out ‘deviant cases’ to search for negative instances which serve to test out a theoretical perspective. My sampling approach ensured I included such cases, including policy makers from law enforcement agencies and service providers from government agencies, as opposed to community based service providers who I considered might be more inclined to challenge existing paradigms. Conversational partners – as they have been described by Rubin and Rubin (2005) – were recruited from Victoria, New South Wales (NSW), the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and Tasmania. The rationale behind choosing these States was because both Victoria and NSW have long established, government funded, peer-based drug user organisations. The ACT did have a funded peer-based organisation at the commencement of the research, however, during the course of the project funding was withdrawn and then subsequently reinstated almost a year later. Tasmania remains the only State in Australia not to have a funded peer-based drug user organisation, although there have been several groups which formed then eventually disbanded during the past two decades. A key focus of the interviews was to try and understand the different factors behind why some States were able to sustain peer-based organisations and others not.

In total 15 people were recruited to be interviewed. Four were from NSW, three from Victoria, two from the ACT and six from Tasmania. All had been working in some capacity in the illicit drug sector for a minimum of ten years, some of them in a number of different States, as well as at a national and international level. Those recruited were either contacts I had established during my time working in the illicit drug sector or, in some cases, on the recommendation of these people, using what has

been described as a ‘snowball’ approach (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005:47; Rice and Ezzy 1999:45). Those interviewed included policy makers, service providers and workers from peer-based drug user organisations. It should be noted that in some cases these people worked in more than one capacity within these partnerships. The nature of Australia’s ‘drug policy community’ means that people are often involved in both policy development and service delivery, and in the case of some of the people working with user organisations their work meant they fitted into all three cohorts. Interviews were conducted using an approach based on what Rubin and Rubin (2005) describe as responsive interviewing. A similar perspective on interviewing by

Holstein and Gubrium (2004) described such interviews as “active interviews”. Rubin and Rubin’s model relies on a mix of interpretive constructionism and critical theory and is shaped by the practicalities of conducting interviews. The aim of this style of interviewing is to create depth of understanding rather than breadth and requires the research design to remain flexible throughout the course of the research (Rubin and Rubin 2005:30). Responsive interviewing requires the interviewer to reflect on their role throughout the interview and be aware of how their views might influence the interview process. In responsive interviewing the interviewer ‘establishes the general direction of the project [however], the conversational partners set the more specific path’ (Rubin and Rubin 2005:33). Rubin and Rubin use the term ‘conversational partners’ as this emphasises the active role they play in the discussion and the direction that it takes. In this way both participants are able to reached a shared understanding of the issues being discussed (Rubin and Rubin 2005:14). This approach recognises the unique traits each person has and enables the researcher to gain insights into their distinct knowledge and experiences enabling a deeper understanding of the research topic.

Prior to the interviews participants were sent a one-page sheet outlining some of the themes that might be explored, but emphasising that much of the discussion would relate to their own experience of partnerships. Each interview started out with the same question “In your experience how successful has the involvement in

delivery planning processes been?” The responses to this initial question then guided the direction of the conversation towards the individuals’ own experience of working in partnerships as this differed among each of the conversational partners. This enabled the conversational partners to elaborate on a range of topics, thereby

providing insights into the real life experience of working in partnerships that I may have otherwise not been aware of. My role as the researcher was to pick up on points of interest and by use of a series of probing questions explore them in more depth. In effect the interviews constituted an ethnographic study focussing on the

experiences of people working in partnerships as part of their role within the ‘drug policy community’. Their involvement in this ‘community’ qualifies them as members of what Rice and Ezzy (1999:154) describe as a ‘cultural group’.

Ethnography is considered an effective strategy to ‘emotionally engage, educate, and move the public to action’ (Tedlock 2005:473) which is a key aim of this research. Ethnographic research differs from other forms of research in that ‘rather than

‘studying’ people, the ethnographer attempts to ‘learn from the people’’ (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005:165). By adopting an ethnographic approach I was able to gather a rich description of the ‘culture’ of the policy making and service development environments and acquire insights into the involvement of people who use illicit drugs in this process (Liamputtong and Ezzy 2005:174).

The interviews were all conducted face-to-face as I feel that the responsive

interviewing approach I adopted is not well suited to telephone interviewing due to the somewhat impersonal nature of this technique. Interviews ranged in length from 45 minutes to 2 ½ hours and were recorded using a digital voice recorder. I personally transcribed the interviews verbatim using Microsoft Word. While somewhat laborious I considered this process enabled me to immerse myself in the data from the earliest stages of analysis and aided in the identification of any significant patterns in the data as they emerged.