Semi-Structured Interviews with ‘Key Actors’

Interviewing is about the most common research method for obtaining rich qualitative data (see Gillham, 2000). Much has been written on different types of interviewing – from structured to unstructured; the purposes of each and the kinds of questions to ask in the different types (Patton, 1990; Rubin and Rubin, 1998). Rubin and Rubin (1995) described

151 interviews as „guided conversations‟ while Burgess (1982) described them as conversations

„with a purpose‟. Likening an interview to a conversation emphasises its informality, friendliness, and attempt to forge a relationship between interviewer and interviewee (cf.

Simons, 2009, 44). The underlying philosophy and design of qualitative research requires that the researcher develops a relationship of trust and respect with the participants (Bogdan and Biklen, 1992). According to Punch (2005), the interview is a very good way to access people‟s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations, and constructions of reality. Yin (2003) also observed that the interview is one of the most important sources of information with regard to case study research. However, different types of interview have different strengths and weaknesses (Punch, 2005).

The major difference between the different interview types (unstructured, structured, semi-structured) is their degree of rigidity with regard to presentational structure (Berg, 2009). The type(s) of interview used in a research will depend on the focus of that research. Different types of interviews are suited to different situations. The researcher selected a semi-structured interview type for this research. While a structured interview has a formalized set of questions, often decided ahead of the interview, semi-structured interviews consist of both structured and un-structured sets of questions. The latter allows new questions to be brought up during the interview as a result of what the interviewee says. Thus, the interview literally becomes a two-way conversation, with both the interviewer and the interviewee receiving and giving information on issues relevant to the research. In addition, the interviewees asked questions about the research and the challenges I encountered in terms of accessing the residents. The majority of questions are created during the interview. Interviewees are also encouraged to ask questions during the process. However, semi-structured interviews are guided, but the interview guide provides only a framework for the interview. The flexibility

152 of semi-structured interviews means that it is less intrusive with regard to those being interviewed. Interviewees are more likely to want to talk about sensitive issues and are also more likely to provide, not just the answers, but also the reasons for their answers, including examples where possible (see Henn et al., 2006). The researcher is also able to ask follow-up questions. Unlike an unstructured interview where the interview is open and „free-floating‟, the semi-structured interview is focused. This ensures that the interview produces relevant information which may not be the case where the interview is totally unstructured. Thus, data obtained from semi-structured interviews is generally rich and in depth, giving the researcher a fuller understanding of the informants‟ perspective on the topic under investigation, and the reasons behind the views and opinions expressed (see Simons, 2009).

The use of semi-structured interview in case study research allows the researcher to explore the „why questions‟ which will in turn enrich the data. Yin (2003) noted that in most situations, case study interviews must be open-ended in nature, so that the researcher can ask respondents about the facts of the matter as well as their opinions about events. The researcher believes that the use of probes, prompts and a flexible questioning style that semi-structure interviews provide (both in terms of the ways in which questions are asked and the order in which they are delivered) gives the researcher a great opportunity to explore and encourage respondents to give their detailed views on the issues. According to Henn et al.

(2006) the use of probes and prompts in qualitative interviews enables the researcher and the respondent to enter into a dialogue about the topic in question, and this can be helpful in that the researcher and the respondent are given the opportunity to query questions and answers, and to verify that they have a shared understanding of meaning. In this sense Yin (2003) argued that this will turn the respondents into „informants‟, thus making them crucial to the

153 success of the case study. By using semi-structured interviews, respondents are also encouraged to provide examples in order to ground their narrative.

Sixteen key actors were interviewed. These included: a representative (senior staff level) from each of the following organisations: Unity Property Services, Unity Housing Association, Labour Councillors for Chapel Allerton Ward, Children‟s Fund, Chapeltown Enterprise Centre/Black Men‟s Forum, Yes-Cyber, Groundwork Leeds, Ridings Housing Association, Chapel Allerton Seniors Association and Palace Youth Project.

The semi-structured interviews were comprised of exploratory questions framed around the study‟s research questions. Accordingly, the interview explored issues such as:

The key actors‟ knowledge of crime, anti-social behaviour and physical and social disorder in Chapeltown;

The economic and social profile of Chapeltown, including the perceived stigma attached to living in the area, and the extent of cohesiveness of the community.

The key actors‟ knowledge of the regeneration programme in the area, and the extent of social inclusion, community involvement, consultation and participation in the process.

The interviewees were identified from the Chapel Allerton guide book. The interviewees were first contacted by phone and the details of the research were then forwarded to them.

The interviewees were asked to pick the appropriate and convenient time for the interviews.

It is worth noting that it was not all the contacts identified through the guide book that agreed

154 to take part in the research, as such some interviewees were identified through snowballing.

In total 25 interviewees were identified and it was a total of 16 that took part in the research.

In recruiting the interviewees, the aim was to identify the key stakeholders that have been involved in the delivery and implementation of regeneration project in the area. The interviews took place in the offices of the interviewees. All interviews were audio tape recorded with the participants‟ permission, and transcribed verbatim by the researcher. The transcription took over two hours depending on the length of the interviews. Interview transcripts were later returned to the interviewees for verification, or for the addition of material where clarification was needed. The interviews ranged in length from 45minutes to one hour. Although the literature is not unanimous on the use of the process of recording, audio recording has a number of advantages. First it ensures accuracy of reportage and adds to the veracity of the reporting. Second it frees the researcher from having to make notes, so that he or she is able to concentrate on the interviewees‟ answers and prompt more effectively (Bryman, 2008; Simons, 2009). Recordings are also essential for accurate transcription, and it provides the researcher the opportunity to re-listen to the interview, in order to review and highlights points missed during the first time of listening.

It must be noted that the interviews were conducted in line with the requirements of the University of Lincoln Ethics Committee, in that all interviewees were advised of the tenor of the issues to be addressed in the interview, which was sent by email in advance. The researcher provided the interviewees with an information sheet detailing the aims of the research and the structure the interview will take. Before the interview, the interviewees were asked whether they were still willing to take part in the interview and they have a right to withdraw from their participation. They were also provided with a consent form, a summary of the research aims and objectives and an introductory letter from the university. In addition,

155 the privacy rights of the interviewees were explained to each of them as they were also of paramount importance to the researcher. Most importantly, the interviewees were assured that the information gleaned from the interviews would be anonymised and confidentiality would be maintained in terms of disclosure (see Munn and Drever, 1991; Gillham, 2000).

Since interviewing involves asking, listening, reflecting and interpreting, interviews are inevitably influenced by the nature of both the interviewee and the interviewer. In this project there is no doubt that personal characteristics such as race and ethnicity came into play during the interviewing process. As Bell and Newby (1971) noted in their classic text, „Community Studies‟, one‟s background, status or position can be a benefit or a handicap when seeking to obtain acceptance. This point is further addressed in Section 4.3 that looks at the „insider‟ and

„outsider‟ debate.