Semi-Structured Interviews

The selection to use a semi-structured interview approach over that of a structured interview relates to the importance of gaining genuine access to worldviews, perceptions, and opinions of those being interviewed (Bryman, 2016). There are numerous variations of the ‘interview’ approach, ranging from questionnaires in writing; oral interviews constricted to predetermined questions of the interview schedule through to the more freely structured semi-structured interview; and exploratory interviews (Whyte, 1991). ‘A conversational and fluid form’, semi-structured interviews enable a dialogue to be developed rather than an interrogation, leading to a richer and more detailed insight into their experiences. As Valentine (2005, p.111) states:

“The aim of an interview is not to be representative (a common but

people experience and make sense of their own lives. The emphasis is on considering the meanings people attribute to their lives and the processes which operate in particular social contexts.”

The fact that prior to the interviews, the research investigation had narrowed the focus of the research topic down through the literature review and the process of

observations means that more specific issues relating to this research could be

addressed. None the less, the semi-structured interview approach, also generally noted as ‘in-depth interviews’ or as ‘qualitative interviews’, were still ‘non-directive’ in nature which required more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response, encouraging individuals to explain and answer questions in depth (Byrne, 2012). The role of the researcher here is not that of an interrogator but rather a one-down position in which the stakeholders selected can “criticise a question, correct it, point out that it is sensitive, or answer in any way they want to” (Agar, 1996, p.140). This approach may be considered as an amoeba with the appearance of the interview being a natural and interesting

conversation (Burgess, 1991). Burgess’s (1984, p.102) term ‘conversation with a purpose’ provides an apt conceptualisation. As a result the conversations encouraged a level of reflection that may have strayed towards moments of ‘rambling’ on the interviewees behalf, taking conversations off course and on tangents. Yet this refers back to what Bryman (2016) argues as an important aspect of gaining access to worldviews, perceptions, and opinions.

This unstructured and unfocused nature of this method may therefore be perceived as a method that collects questionable data regarding its usability. It is the role of a good ethnographer that does extensive preparation prior to such data collection that has the opportunity to acknowledge these criticisms and rectify them. The strength of the method is that it allows the manipulation of the approach, with the interviewer guiding and bending the conversation through focused or loose questions based on prior knowledge to the subject to suit the service of the research interest (Burgess, 1991). Whilst I had general questions that were common throughout all my interviews, I also had more specific questions as a result of prior observations and engagements. This may seem to contradict the concept of exploratory interviewing due to its emphasis upon placing restrictions on individuals through the questions posed, inhibiting to freely explain their own perspective of things. Yet, it was

understood that conversations may depart from the line of question; some questions may be more relevant than others; or that the order of conducting those questions would alter for each interview. It is this flexibility that a semi-structured interview provides as it is what the interviewee perceives that is important. As Bryman (2016, p.468) maintains:

“The emphasis must be on how the interviewee frames and understands issues and events-that is, what the interviewee views as important in explaining and understanding events, patterns, and forms of behaviour.”

Exploring the cycling social sites required discussing with individuals who had different understandings and perceptions of cycling and different methods of

engagement in benefitting cycling practices in comparison to other stakeholders and the wider socio-political environment. With the introductions to stakeholders

throughout the cycling field previously established during the process of participant observation, it was of importance to use semi-structured interviews to discover new information and expand upon existing understandings, thus providing the opportunity to inform and shape the on-going research process (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999).

This step relied upon the identification of particular sites within the field of cycling in Newcastle and their stakeholders in order to gain an in-depth understanding of their perspectives.

Sequential Purposive Sampling

Sampling is generally associated with survey research, but any type of social

investigation will generally have a level of sampling from the basic unit of study due to the size of population or social setting making it difficult for everyone or

everything to be observed (Burgess, 1991). As the research study doesn’t fall into a positivist framework, utilising a probability sample to validate results is not

necessary. Rather, the three social sites (the ‘samples’) have been selected as a result of a conceptually or theoretically informed process (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999, p.232). The research aims determine that the research requires ‘informed informants’

and not just ‘responsive respondents’ (Bernard, 2006). These informants are not to be seen as selection at random but rather a judgemental sample in respect to their

specialised knowledge on the particular topics established (Agar, 1996). Therefore, individuals were chosen on purpose rather than at random due to their cultural expertise. As Bryman (2016, p.408) comments, this selection of individuals for interviews relates to a purposive sampling technique in which those selected are relevant to the research question posed. Individuals associated to the various social sites identified within Newcastle’s cycling field, whether they be associated to a business, organisation, campaign or other, were selected due to their knowledge and connection to either one of the three major social sites or in relation to the wider cycling field. In addition to this, due to the use of an observational method of data collection the sampling was also rather sequential in nature, whereby new individuals and indeed new social sites were identified throughout the course of the research process. As a result, this ‘sequential purposive sampling’ approach enabled

individuals to be selected ‘by virtue of their relevance to the research questions’ with the sample gradually being added to as the investigation evolved (Bryman, 2016, p.410).

The choice of social sites within the cycling population represents a “trade-off between studying cases in depth or in breadth” (Hammersley, 1998, p.11). As it is observed here, like many ethnographic studies, the latter is sacrificed for the former in order to make theoretical inferences that may otherwise be impossible. This is not to say however that the research study lacks some form of breadth. By selecting three social sites, there is still the opportunity for comparison and the opportunity to provide different perspectives concerning the same issue (Burgess, 1991). The same research questions are posed to the social sites in a consistent setting of Newcastle (albeit over different timeframes) but provide the opportunity to involve comparable analysis to confirm patterns, establish variability’s and establish a field of cycling within the social sites under study (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999).

The interviews were based on a specific criterion of identifying a number of key stakeholders per case who were able to provide “orienting information about the context and history of the study and the study site” (Schensul and LeCompte, 1999, p.121). Roles included Chair, Secretary, General Manager, President or otherwise but the fact remained that they were key stakeholders of these social sites, either

currently, historically or both. Due to the size of the cycling network within

Newcastle (see Chapter 4.6.1) it meant that many individuals knew of one another and therefore would mention or comment on them when discussing particular topics in the interview. As a result, some interviewees were identified on the recommendations of other research participants, relating to a snowballing technique whereby those research participants interviewed identified, through their experience and knowledge of the cycling field, other individuals I as a researcher had been unaware of or not yet encountered. Comments in regard to this included:

“I mean it would also be equally interesting to speak to people from [social site].” (Newcastle Cycling Campaign, S4)

“If I think of anyone else, trying to think, have you ever come across [name]… I’m still in regular contact with [name], we do some small projects together, so if you want to speak to him I can sort that out.”

(Sustrans, S1)

“I mean by all means I’m sure [name] would be happy to speak to you as well.” (Newcastle Cycling Campaign, S4)

“Have you spoken to [name], because [name] was you know a councillor.” (Tynebikes, S1)

Therefore, whilst prior observations identified key stakeholders to approach, the cycling network itself provided further stakeholders through the connections between significant individuals (Seale, 2012). Whilst Seale (2012, p.145) comments that a particular limitation of utilising snowball sampling includes a bias towards a certain group of individuals it was an unexpected consequence of the interviews. The approach manifested after a number of initial contact points had already been identified (Valentine, 2005). Therefore, it should be considered that these

recommendations by others served as a method of confirming that those who I already had identified or spoken to already, were relevant and representative individuals. This therefore not only added to key stakeholders within the cycling network of Newcastle, but it also verified and confirmed my selection of stakeholders.

In total 29 interviews were conducted with 23 separate stakeholders (some

stakeholders were interviewed twice) throughout the research process with research

participants relating to both the social sites and the wider cycling field. There were another 9 individuals identified that I wished to speak to and interview yet I was unable to do so. In some cases other individuals were identified from the same social site or it was decided that I had already spoken to a large number of stakeholders associated to a particular social site and decided against interviewing any further.

Throughout the research, I refer to research participants anonymously, using their association to the particular social site they themselves identify with. Stakeholders are numbered, acknowledging that a number of stakeholders were interviewed from a social site. For example ‘The Cycle Hub, S3’ refers to a stakeholder from The Cycle Hub, whilst also acknowledging there has been at least three stakeholders at The Hub interviewed. It is also raised here that a number of informal discussions took place with ‘users’ of a social site (primarily The Cycle Hub). These quotes and comments are marked ‘The Cycle Hub, U1’ to signify a user rather than a stakeholder.

It was preferred to conduct individual face-to-face interviews due to the synchronous communication in time and place which allowed social cues such as voice, intonation and body language to be instantly identified when conducting the interview

(Opdenakker, 2006). Generally held in social areas such as cafes, a library, pub or civic centre, on one occasion the interview included two interviewees of the same social site after the stakeholder thought it useful to bring along a fellow member to provide further perspective. On three occasions interviews involved telephoning or using Skype due to the difficulty of meeting, either as a result of geographical or timing constraints. Although telephone interviews still elicited a valuable discussion with the participants it was evident that the inability to observe body language and react upon this may have reduced further exploration of particular discussion topics (Bryman, 2016). Furthermore with the Skype chat, the poor Internet quality meant that although video was possible, both that and the voice line would now and again cut out or freeze, resulting in transcriptions being incomplete (Bryman, 2016).

Therefore, it was favourable to conduct interviews in a face-to-face format unless circumstances prevented so.

12 of 35 interviews occurred on the Newcastle University campus, predominantly in cafes on campus. But the majority were held off campus at places of the research participant’s choice. As a result, a number of interviews (7 of 35 interviews) were

conducted at the individual’s place of work or associated place of work, generally for the ease of the research participant. But this was also beneficial for the research study as these were cycling social sites and therefore the ability to discuss the place whilst inhabiting and observing it enabled further context (Valentine, 2005). Generally, preparation involved the establishment of a place that is of comfort to the interviewee and introduction of the project. This was confirmed through the provision of the

‘information sheet’ (Appendix 2), which ensured confidentiality and protection of their privacy.

All interviews were recorded via dictaphone with the resulting audio format transcribed, predominantly in full with a number only transcribed in some part but only after listening back to the interview and identifying large sections which were non-relational to the research topic (Bryman, 2016). The use of a dictaphone was considered to provide the most detail in comparison to taking notes during the

interview and writing a report later or making notes once the interview had concluded and then writing it up (Whyte, 1991). Interviews lasted from as short as 25 minutes to as long as 2 hours and 30 minutes. Largely however they lasted between 40 minutes to 1 hour and 20 minutes. Whilst transcription is a time consuming task and the presence of the dictaphone created a sense of formalness, these were outweighed by the ability to record the whole interview. Furthermore, this approach was not prone to losing attention when having to concentrate on making notes or generating extended awkward pauses for the interviewee whilst attempting to scribble down comments and then attempting to reengage with the conversation (Whyte, 1991). If a dictaphone was not to be used for the fear of limiting the response of the individual through the sense of the meeting being too ‘formal’ or the anxiety of ‘everything being on tape’, then the lack of one creates an interview that is just as anxious with lapses of concentration and pauses on the researcher’s behalf whilst frantically attempting to record anything of interest. Thus, using a dictaphone enables the researcher to focus upon the

interviewee, register any non-verbal cues and be able to pick up productive leads given by the informant.

Interviews generally started with a discussion around the individuals own cycling performances, the study instead emphasised the strategic motivations of individuals on what could be argued as cycling practice-as-entity, in identifying wider strategic

goals of these social sites in contributing and enabling other individuals to utilise what they have developed in their own performances. However, as mentioned interviews generally started with discussions of the participants own cycling practice and indeed in relation to The Cycle Hub, further interviews with cycle users discussed their own cycling performances to provide the research more insight into why The Hub was being used. As Hitchings (2012, p.61) argues “people can often talk in quite revealing ways about actions they may usually take as a matter of course” and therefore the use of interviews in regards to the discussion of practice as performance was still suitable to utilise.