A note on the research process: the sociologist in science

qualitative research raises more than purely technical issues about data

collection (Atkinson et al. 2003). Issues discussed include engagement with complex data and power and inequality relations in conducting interviews - which constitutes the heart of my fieldwork.

One issue that was prominent during the entire research process concerns the technical nature of the topic and data. Although earlier research had made me familiar with the ‘science’ behind tissue engineering, the amount and

complexity of techno-scientific and clinical data was at times daunting. Even, or perhaps exactly in order to provide a socio-political analysis of tissue

engineering, I had to know the basics. This meant updating my technical knowledge by consulting tissue engineering handbooks, scientific articles and online resources explaining the ins and outs of the technology. Especially during my interactions with scientists, but also with manufacturers and clinicians, I informed the respondent of my technical naivety. None of the interviewees seemed reluctant to meet my request for more explanation or elaboration.

This position does have repercussions though for the ‘authority of the researcher’ and affects the kind of data and possibly their validity in a given context. As documented in several methodological studies about conducting fieldwork, the researcher is engaged in practical activities that are not neutral, nor result in ‘an unmediated representation of an independently truthful

representation of the social world’ (Atkinson et al. 2003: 13).

Another aspect that affected the relationship and interactions with my ‘research subjects’ concerns my position as non-UK junior female researcher in a social science discipline. Most interviewees were senior professionals and male, and experts in their respective fields. In political terms this had the advantage there was no ‘competition’ or tension as generated from a power relation. This could lead to the conclusion that the interviewee is ‘in control’ of the situation, simply based on this unequal distribution of power from the outset (Gilbert 1993).

Indeed, some respondents were not always or necessarily directly guided by the interviewer. Several interviewees, especially those familiar with

communicating information outside their own field of expertise, had a story ready to be told, being less inclined to follow the order of topics suggested by the researcher (or, in rare occasions, the topics brought up at all). I like to think this is more a matter of dealing with experienced communicators than reflecting lack of control of the situation on behalf of the researcher. Also, even ‘losing control’ over my topic list has generally brought up interesting additional insights. Furthermore, it has been suggested that for ‘the perfect match’

between interviewer and interviewee it is not always meaningful to think in terms of similarity, and that ‘it may be easier to confide in a stranger, that female interviewers may be less threatening to both female and male

respondents and that deference may encourage rather than inhibit response’

(Fielding 1993: 145).

But there were also other forces at play. For example the fact that English is not my mother tongue, while interviews were conducted in this language,

meant on the positive note that I could use my language inability, sometimes as an excuse, to prompt the respondent to further clarification. Secondly the fact that a number of interviewees at EU level or on the continent did not speak

English as their first language either was an advantage in terms of (in)equality;

my impression is that these interviewees felt probably more at ease knowing that there was more than one person in the equation trying to express

themselves in a foreign language. Which is not to suggest that language

barriers were overall non-existent or not problematic. Especially with the phone interviews, where it is obviously harder to communicate non-verbal language, I felt I had to more strictly stick to the literal questions written out in the interview guide. Overall my impression is that the face-to-face interactions provided more rich material than telephone (or, for that matter, email) conversations.

These issues all more or less relate to general communication (strategies) during the interviews. It has been argued that two principles should inform interviews: the questioning should be as open-ended as possible to gain spontaneous information, and the questioning techniques should encourage the informant to communicate underlying attitudes and belief rather than trying to get away with easy answers. The idea, then, is to have an as frankly

discussion as possible. But reality bites, and for centuries researchers have been warned for the effects the interviewer has on the respondent’s

statements. It is acknowledged widely that respondents may attempt to rationalise their behaviour by trying to give logical answers rather than

emotional reasons which may gain more insight. Also lack of awareness and lack of information have been reported. Over-politeness towards the interviewer is another issue which can hamper frank discussion, for example when

respondents give answer they anticipate the interviewer wants to hear. Several suggestions have been made to alleviate these communication problems, many of which come down to putting the respondent at ease, and being experienced in the interviewing technique and familiar with your interview guides (Fielding 1993). These suggestions were only in so far helpful for my research, in that the most crucial and high-level interviews, for example those at the European Commission, were saved till last to benefit from the insights and experience gathered during earlier data collection and to feel more at ease with both the interviewing guides and overall process. This on the pragmatic level. As a more conceptual issue it is interesting to notice how much of the literature on ‘how to conduct a proper interview’ has a very technical

understanding of what the interview procedure should look like. Much of the

guidance is about controlling the process to maximise the flow of valid and reliable information. The simple assumption is that if the interviewer asks questions properly, the respondent will come up with the desired information.

Without wanting to address a more philosophical discussion here of positivist versus constructivist realities in interviewing,19 or even general quests for the truth out there, this does connect to a related issue, namely validity and reliability of data.

The next section discusses my methods for data collection, followed by a section on data management and analysis.