discussions (see Chapter 2); thus, attempting to understand the views of people who use models is important. It allows us as modellers to consider what actions we may wish to take to make our models more useful to policy makers, and thus improve the use of modelling in policy. Additionally, the findings will be used to underpin the design of the SWAP model. How this is to be done is outlined in more detail in the next chapter.
The chapter continues as follows. Section 3.2 details the methods used. Section 3.3 presents the findings and accompanying discussions. Conclusions are made in Section 3.4.
3.2 Methods
The focus of the interviews was on participants reporting their job role and use of models, describing any models they use, explaining how they evaluate models, and their perceptions of the role and use of models more generally. A semi-structured approach was used with an interview schedule consisting of an introduction to gain informed consent, and eleven basic questions with probes and follow up questions. A copy of the interview schedule can be found in Appendix B.
Fourteen of the interviews were carried out by telephone, averaging nearly twenty six minutes each. The remaining five were conducted by email, averaging over one thousand words each, including questions. Of the nineteen interviews carried out, the first two were not used in the analysis as they were pilot interviews. These interviews were with participants that had borderline relevance to the scope of the study; one being a junior researcher not working on policy directly, and the second working on policy issues that are not under the environmental policy umbrella. As this potential lack of relevance was clear from communications before the interviews, these two were purposely set up prior to others and used as a form of pilot.
The participants were treated as ‘elite’ (Desmond,2004;Hertz and Imber,1995) due to their relative position of power, experience and subject knowledge. The main outcome of this was to offer participants a choice of interview mode in an attempt to maximise participation, thus in the call for participants a choice was offered between face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews.
3.2. Methods 33
Face-to-face interviews are often seen as the ‘gold-standard’ when conducting qualit-ative interviews (Cachia and Millward,2011;Opdenakker,2006;Seymour,2001). This is based upon the assumption that researchers are most likely to develop good rapport with participants in this mode (Irvine, 2011). However, this may not be so relevant when interviewing ‘elites’, or indeed, professionals that have high social and com-munication skills. In this case, the researcher is likely to be able to take advantage of the participant’s communication skills, and understanding of the researcher’s goals, by using the telephone to conduct interviews, and thus increasing the pool of poten-tial participants. A fuller discussion offering a choice of mode to elite or professional participants can be found inJohnson(2013).
Participants who were based geographically distant from the researcher, were inter-viewed by phone to reduce costs. The remaining participants chose to be interinter-viewed by phone, or stated that time and flexibility in the timing of the interview were im-portant for them, so telephone interviews were carried out for them also. The five participants who ended up being interviewed by email had all agreed to telephone in-terviews, but proved very difficult to get hold of; they regularly rearranged interview times or were simply unavailable at the planned time. Eventually, an email interview was suggested to allow them to still participate.
During the interviews it was often necessary to repeat questions, or ask for more in-formation to get past ‘stock’ responses (i.e., responses resembling public relations ma-terial). When interviewing elites, and when interviewing individuals about their job, it is important to consider the possibility that participants are constructing narratives to serve purposes beyond simply describing their true perceptions. Several research-ers have considered the potential for elites to deploy ‘official lines’ or use neutral, teacher-like voices (Duke,2002;Stephens,2007). Participants may have also construc-ted socially desirable responses, or indeed responses that protecconstruc-ted and justified their own job roles. Although strategies to deal with these issues are hard to pin down, the literature offers many intuitive tips and ideas (e.g.,Harvey,2010,2011) which include asking for elaboration or clarification, or mentioning other sources of information that may provide different viewpoints.
3.2. Methods 34
While there was no obvious defensiveness in any of the participants’ responses, it was clear that ‘stock’ responses were often used initially, before the researcher asked for more detail. Asking for more detail, and rephrasing questions were the only tactics used in these cases, which appeared to work well enough. Though several participants reported feeling underprepared for the interviews, they did have time to think about the interview and prepare any positions beforehand. The fact that some participants felt they could be underprepared (when in fact this was impossible) shows that the participants, even if subconsciously, were preparing a front, or narrative to display in the interview.
Theory from a broad range of disciplines is used in the analysis to help reinforce and improve the findings’ relevance and depth. Much of the theory relevant to the analysis was not explored in detail until after the interviews and initial coding of data had taken place; this was done to minimise any effect this knowledge may have had on both these components of the research. The use of quotes is prioritised in this research, to ensure the research is as empirically grounded as possible.
3.2.1 Sampling
The sampling strategy was purposive (participants needed to be working on an area that could be reasonably considered environmental policy) and relied on gatekeep-ing (usgatekeep-ing individuals with contacts to reach participants) and snowballgatekeep-ing (askgatekeep-ing participants to suggest or find further participants). There was no attempt to make the sampling representative as it is not appropriate in a small qualitative study, and is likely impossible given the lack of sampling frame. A ‘call for participants’ docu-ment (see Appendix A) was distributed by email in several ways. Professional con-tacts were used as gatekeepers to circulate the call within their organisations; they were also asked for suggestions of other possible gatekeepers. Professional networks (mailing lists and LinkedIn) that the researcher was a member of were also used to distribute the call. Finally, snowballing was used when participants offered to help find other participants.
Throughout the sampling process, the role of professional and personal contacts, name-dropping, individual circumstance and luck was clear; a different researcher may have
3.2. Methods 35
found a different set of participants because of this. Whilst this increases the potential for systematic bias in the sampling procedure, it is unlikely to have problematic effects on the findings, owing to the qualitative nature of the analysis and approach.
Table 3.1 shows a list of the participants, including a description of their role, seniority, their role with models, and the mode used to interview them.
All of the participants self-identified as working on policy issues. Overall, nine had high seniority in their organisations, only one had a low seniority role, the rest had middle-level seniority. Seniority was based on the impression the participant gave of how many people worked under them, and how close they were to politicians or decision-makers. This meant that it was a somewhat subjective judgement. It was decided that asking participants directly to describe their seniority may have been too sensitive or antagonising. All but one of the participants worked with models, either directly working on modelling, or overseeing and interpreting the application of mod-els. Six of the participants worked in government departments or other public bodies, five worked at universities as researchers or lecturers working directly on policy, three worked at a consultancy, two at an NGO and one at a lobbying organisation.
The sample has two key characteristics that are potentially unrepresentative of those working on environmental policy. Firstly it is very UK-centric, and thus missing the views of individuals from elsewhere. Particularly noticeable is the lack of participants from developing countries, this is probably a consequence of the sampling strategy which relied on personal and professional networks. Secondly, only one participant did not use models at all in their work. Again, this is probably a reflection of the call for participants, which used words and phrases (see Appendix A) revolving around models which meant potential participants not working with models are unlikely to have paid enough attention to the call to realise those that do not work with models were welcome too.
3.2.2 Ethics
Standard ethical procedures were conducted to ensure that participants had given in-formed consent to take part in the research. This was done by formally asking at the beginning of the recorded interview, which can be seen in the interview schedule in
3.2. Methods 36
Table 3.1: List and basic details of participants
No. Description Seniority Role with models Interview
Mode
5 Academic university (UK) High Oversees work, does not
do the modelling
7 Academic university (UK) High Oversees work, does not
do the modelling
Telephone
8 Economist government
de-partment (UK)
Mid Does not do modelling
but has to work with out-puts of models
Mid Does not do the
model-ling directly but works
14 Academic university (UK) High Oversees and works
dir-ectly on models
15 Senior researcher
non-governmental-organisation (UK)
High Uses models but does not build models
16 Lecturer university (UK) High Builds and works with
models
17 Consultant consultancy
(France)
Mid Uses models but does not build models
*These participants were used for pilot interviews.