Semi-Structured Interviews

Interviews are best applied to “the exploration of more complex and subtle phenomena”

and are a suitable method for accessing opinions and experiences, sensitive issues and privileged information (Denscombe 2010, 174). Given my discursive focus I examine

38

“how actors make sense of the world and […] act within it” (Dunn and Neumann 2016, 4). Interviews are widely used as a method for discursive research because they “elicit subjective perceptions, and retrospection” and from an ethnographic perspective, develop a fuller picture of multiple realities (Kezar 2003, 397).

A semi-structured interview is a way to address a list of issues and remain flexible.

Researcher flexibility allows the interviewee to develop ideas and speak more widely on issues of interest (Denscombe 2010, 175). I relied on a short interview schedule with base questions which I tailored to each interviewee. Questions pertained more to resistance and EIAs if I was interviewing an activist, and more to CSR and the government if I was interviewing those in ‘powerful’ positions. Unlike structured interviews, the semi-structured interview allowed me to be more active in deciding on follow-up questions. Given that I did not need to compare questions and answers exactly, it was a good fit for the aim of my research. I could probe for clarity and allow the informant to take me down unexpected paths. Open-ended questioning, in a semi-structured format, allows for ‘branching’ where the informants tell the interviewer what is relevant and what is important “rather than being restricted by the researchers’

preconceived notions about what is important” (Berry 2002, 681).

The task of the interviewer is “to limit the potential for interviewer effects” (Moses and Knutsen 2012, 132), because the main issue with interviews is working with the

difference between empirical fact and personal interpretation. This issue of reliability requires consistency in technique, for example using consistent probing. To deal with the problem of exaggeration, I followed Berry’s advice to do prior research on

informants, ask about other actors than themselves and to try to move away from

‘impact questions’ – those about someone’s personal role or that of their organisation (2002, 681). I also had some scripted probes, decided on a core focus for the interview and tried to have ‘bridges’ for when I needed to get back to a point. Double-barreled questions were avoided to give the informant space and time to respond. These techniques all attempt to deal with the issue between truth and perception. Although, given the epistemological point of departure and the research approach, interviews were less about comparing representations to their particular ‘reality’ and were more about accessing competing understandings of mining issues.

39

I planned to interview a range of people from government to company representatives, local activists and academics. One of the things I noticed, as Nilsen notes, was that different groups of activists “articulated their ideas of alternative development in very different ways” (2016, 281). I knew, therefore, that I needed to speak with a range of activists to understand competing versions of the anti-mining discourse from adivasis activists and farmer activists who had first-hand experience of corporate mining

practices, to urban educated middle class activists and individuals from NGOs who had more second hand knowledge. I conducted interviews with 27 people: seven activists from mining affected areas, three mine owners/mining corporate employees, four people in government agencies, nine activists working for local organisations, two active citizens, and two local academics.

While the number of informants here increases the validity of the information, the informant selection is activist heavy meaning that the activist voice is stronger in the interviews. This was difficult to avoid because of the issues I had with accessing informants, which I discuss further on. However, given that my interest is the

legitimisation of mining and conflict, and how resistance is not effective, this skew is, to an extent, applicable. Still, to manage this textual analysis counter-balanced this skew, to an extent, as they were used more for the pro-mining discourse. Nevertheless, there were consequences of this bias for the overall research, as I continue to explain.

Interviews were conducted in English and I made notes depending on the agreement the informant and I made about recording. Although audio recording interviews reduces sources of error and inaccuracies, as well as cross-comparison (Denscombe 2010, 275), in some settings it was denied by the informant or deemed inappropriate. In these cases, recording was avoided in the interest of research and detailed notes were written during and after the meeting. To mediate the power dynamics, I let interviewees choose the location of meetings. The most successful interviews were those that took place in peoples’ homes. Interviews at offices led to interruptions but also allowed me to observe activists working with local people.

Reflexivity is a vital first step in producing good interview research and non-instrumental research more broadly. A key concern in conducting fieldwork, and

beyond into the research process, are ethical and political issues between the researcher, the researched and the representation that is produced. The aim of reflexivity is to

40

discuss how the researchers’ position influences the results and “open up the research to more complex and nuanced understandings of issues, where boundaries between

process and content can get blurred” (Sultana 2007, 376). How to do this varies, but in the context of interviews, one can look at subject positioning as a way “to uncover the manoeuvrings of power” (Aléx and Hammarström 2008, 170). For example, I noticed that when I positioned myself as less powerful, seeking to learn from ‘them’ about mining, informants quickly opened up to ‘teaching’ me. Then, when I responded with knowledge on the subject this aggravated certain informants and they tried to co-opt me to their position. This was because I had picked up information that was used by

activists. I managed this by revealing less about what I did and did not know. This was a reminder of the very different interpretations of mining and conflict that made

communication difficult. Another way to be reflexive is to consider my response to those in power. Some traditions in elite interviews advocate that researchers should challenge the perspective of the informants to “disrupt hegemonic discourses” (Kezar 2003, 411). Not only was this inappropriate theoretically but it was impossible to do in practice given how politicised and sensitive the topic was for people.