Adding action to the interview: Conceptualizing an interview approach inspired by action research elements

Facilitating action with planners

The process of the interview was highly inspired by the movement between critique and utopian ideas. This impetus in the critique created a reflexive sphere wherein the public planners articulated issues such as: “lack of public participation in the water plan process,” “lack of technical professionalism in the water plan process,” and “difficulties working within changing institutional structures.” These issues were not openly discussed in their everyday working life. What characterized the dissatisfactions from the view of the planners was a desire to go beyond their role as planners, and reflect upon reified structures, with which they were unsatisfied. The following move from the critique toward utopian dreams for the future is initiated in the interview with a question such as: “How would the water plan process be if you could decide?” This process alone does not constitute the concrete emancipation, but is a step toward opening up for future ideas and possibilities. In this sense, interviews and conversations are not only centered on achieving information. The interviewer and interviewee together take an active role in the creation of a reflective sphere within the system.

When working in the area between critical theory and critical utopian action research, the process of the interview was dependent upon the creation of the “free space.” This was done by creating an anonymous and trusting atmosphere in the interviews. The “free space” in these interviews does not equal that of traditional critical utopian action research; here the space is also systemic because public planners do not participate as citizens, but as planners representing the system. By establishing a free space in the interview, we created an arena where dissatisfactions were articulated. As an example, one planner reflected upon and articulated his role in the planning process in a way that, according to him, was not possible elsewhere. He uttered: “It’s demanding to realize that you have to be more loyal toward a political orientation than toward professionalism.” Another planner concluded after considerable reflections that “the Danish public sector has a lack of publicity.” What in practice seemed to characterize the interviews when working with this approach was the public planners’ pronounced need to engage in this reflexive sphere. The public planners pointed toward different kinds of unsatisfied planning structures, such as the challenge in constantly being ready for new transitions in their work life, due to restructuring, redundancies, and reforms in the organization, representing issues that the planners cannot discuss openly in the administration. The public planners clearly felt a need for an arena inside the administration, where expression of criticism is accepted and hereby also the future aspirations behind this criticism. This is just one example of how interviews can point toward reified structures.

The contribution and prospects of the interview arise when the public planners in the reflexive sphere are challenging the frozen institutional patterns inside the administration. The interview facilitated action in the sense that it led the planners to request a clear public grip inside the administration, which potentially could supplement the instrumental approach permeating the bureaucracy. Concrete proposals form the planners with the establishment of dialogical processes between state and municipality level, together with opportunities for participatory public involvement. Ideas for the future deliberative democratic processes pointed toward new structures within planning which could empower both planners and the public. The planners stepped forward as more than just obedient servants; they stepped forward as persons being dissatisfied with managing a planning process that did not comply with their expectations for planning.

As part of the interpretation of the interviews, the researcher returned to the interviewed planners two or three times during the research process. This gave the planners an opportunity to confirm, disconfirm, and supplement perspectives from the interview. Through this process the validation of both the interviews and the analytical upcoming themes was enhanced. The interpretation of the interviews was an ongoing process between the researcher and planners, where practice was discussed and challenged by the theoretical approach. For instance, many of the follow-up interviews dealt with the planners’ discontent with the top-down planning process and following wishes of more dialogical planning processes among the public planners. The courage to confront such a theme when being part of the public management demonstrates potentials for a beginning emancipatory process. The interpretation process could further strengthen these emancipatory wishes from the planners if, for instance, the researcher had the opportunity to gather the planners, make common interpretations among planners, and hereby it could be more likely that these emancipatory ideas would be anchored.

In this case the ideas of conducting planning differently did not develop further in practice. The case does, however, show elements of how the action-oriented research unfolds in practice. A classical qualitative interview would mainly be centered only on achieving information about the planners’ situation, whereas the interview inspired by action research moves toward proposing alternative ways for development introduced by the participants, such as the planners’ wish toward more dialogical arenas within planning. Due to the action-oriented approach, the planners moved beyond reflections around technical data and the difficulties within the planning process toward establishing new future scenarios that transcend the systemic rationale.

Facilitating a change of practice

The process of the interviews was generally a pendulum motion between interpreting the Directive in the context of the energy sector and mapping the related existing practice. Topics discussed were “institutional responsibilities,” “methodological challenges in the Directive,” and “interpretation of legislation.” Critical questions gave rise to shared normative views on how environmental assessment could and ought to be applied in the sector. During the interviews, the researcher assisted the employees and other actors in identifying the reified structures in their organizations, e.g. by mirroring their procedures through research-based mappings and asking “stupid” questions on their practices. The shared view and common exploration of existing structures gave rise to ideas for actions that would help to overcome barriers and outline a meaningful way of developing practice.

During interviews and in the research process, the researcher positioned himself as an “outsider” in the midst of a range of internal interests in the energy sector. The research involved sensitive institutional issues in the sector, and a strong institutional affiliation in the sector would make research and changes difficult. The neutral position also ensured a proper distance between organizational interests and the research conducted.

Not being bound by power relations or vested interest in the sector, the researcher’s position enabled a “free space” for discussing practice; this neutral setting allowed for reflections that the planners suppressed in dialogs with other actors. The free space allowed the interviewees to reflect frankly on, for example, discussing national and international practice on environmental assessment without being held accountable for their views on these practices. It seemed like there was a need for such “free spaces” not bound by obligations, strong power relations, or consultancy fees.

The change-oriented view upon the interview influenced the research in the sense that identifying relevant interviewees was not only a matter of achieving information, but also a matter of identifying key persons for potentially generating action for change. The identification was widely a snowballing process, so the selection of interviewees was a common task between the researcher and involved actors. This double interest in the interview led to identification of interviewees that would not have been within the scope if the purpose were only to achieve information about existing practice. As an example, persons working with the socioeconomy were identified in a common process early in the research project, and the relevance of these persons was never considered by the researcher alone.

The contribution of the interview was a common identification and preparation of actions to develop new practices on environmental assessment in the sector. The reflections and developed actions empowered the interviewees to understand and act upon improving practice on environmental assessment. As an example, an interviewee reflected on the mapped organizational challenges and concluded: “I think I will bring it up in the network of lawyers, since this might be a relevant forum for enhancing attention and empowering relevant persons to change practice in the organization.” As another example, an interview with a civil servant working with offshore oil and gas exploration resulted in a new understanding between decision making on oil and gas exploration and the requirements in the Directive: “We will have to think of our tenders in a new way in order to make this a valuable process.” This understanding was formed by a focus on utopian thoughts about the perfect application of environmental assessment and the constraints in the institutional and societal setting. Although the process was never articulated as a common project, the common interest in the topic and change in cases like this was a common driver for the collaboration between the researcher and the actors in the sector.

The interpretation of the interview findings was a continuous process during the interview and in subsequent communication. In addition to simply confirming or disconfirming views, the findings were reflected upon by confronting these with subsequent developments in the organization and/or in the energy sector, or by the interviewee’s learning process on the challenges of applying environmental assessment. The views and findings were thus “tested” or challenged by actual developments, e.g. in terms of the extent to which institutional settings impede certain practices.

As mentioned earlier, some of the generated ideas for action were subsequently carried out in an ad hoc dialog with the researcher. Whereas validation in the traditional interview would have entailed feedback on the accuracy of transcripts, the subsequent actions in the action-oriented interview serve as a deeper validation and more thorough interpretation of the interview findings. In the case of the offshore oil and gas exploration, the interview gave rise to subsequent telephone conversations in which the suggestions for actions developed in the interview were further discussed in terms of the practical aspects and institutional setting. This provided a deeper understanding of the nature of the practices. In this way the quality of practice and research was enhanced.

In this case, the classical qualitative interview would have contributed with knowledge about how certain actors understood and responded to the new Directive. In comparison, the action-oriented interview approach in this case resulted in a mutual information achievement process, a common reflection on implications, and, most importantly, a platform for common development of practice with specific steps toward a certain direction. This action orientation provided a deep insight that was subsequently enhanced by reflection on actions.

An interesting learning from this case is that the potential for action to some extent depends on the insight of the researcher along with the engagement of the participants. In order to have a fruitful dialog and be relevant for practitioners, the researcher must have knowledge to bring into the dialog. In this way, the researcher becomes a discussion partner who can foster critical reflection and help to assess the relevance of ideas—at the same time as learning more about contextual issues and strengthening insight into practice in research communities.

Starting with reflection

Generating action through interviews may be an ethically and morally sensitive process. Therefore, the first element of the action-oriented interview is to be reflective about the setup of the interview; the ways in which the interviewer’s sense of goals and those of the interviewee overlap, or crucially do not; the sensitivity around the topics and persons to interview; the potential consequences of the normativity of the interviewer; the risks of undesirable manipulation of the situation, etc. This reflection is part of the researcher’s preparation for the interview, but it is also a common process as part of establishing a common project between research and practice.

Articulating the ideal of a free space for reflection

The interview sphere is often systemic, which is in contrast to the ideal of a “free space” in traditional critical utopian action research. Therefore, the action-oriented interview approach involves a process of approaching the ideal of a “free space,” but with the acknowledgement that the interview situation is influenced by the system. There is no formula on how to develop a “free space,” but there are some obvious steps which can facilitate an interview. Firstly, the researcher must be open about the approach, the theme and the interviewees’ right to be anonymous, and build up a confidential relation between the researcher and the interviewee (Kvale, 1997). The confidential relation is a solid base from which the ideal of a “free space” may arise.

Undertaking a continuous critique utopia movement during the interview

Combined with the “free space” the movement between the critical and the utopian ideas can be viewed as a methodological approach when trying to point toward reified structures and new beginnings. The movement is inspired by the future creating workshops and is translated into the interview as a direction and inspiration when conducting interviews with an action orientation. Methodologically, the interview is structured around a conversation about the interview theme, then critical perspectives on the theme, and thereafter more visionary or utopian ideas upon a potential future.

Identifying reified structures through dialog

Making reified structures visible through the interview is a driving force to take the interview further toward potential changes. Within the interview, reified structures such as frozen organizational patterns of action are made visible, which is a first step in empowering interviewees in their work and everyday life. Methodologically, reified structures are often made visible through the critical perspective in the interview. In combination with a trusting relationship between the interviewee and researcher, this critical emphasis is a solid starting point for reflection upon reified structures.

Combining interviews with change aspirations

Adding action to the interview approach requires a new approach on how to identify interviewees. In cooperation with the actors involved in the research, the researcher needs to supplement the usual criteria about knowledgeable persons with context-dependent criteria about relevance in relation to action and change. The identification of interviewees will likely be a snowballing exercise, where the interviewees and researcher identify other relevant interviewees. Whereas the snowball sampling is usually based on gathering knowledge, this process was rather based upon empowering employees and the possible anchoring of changes.

Validation through interview follow-up

In order to qualify and validate the action-oriented interview, the approach involves a subsequent and mutual follow-up between the researcher and the interviewee, focusing on the themes and analytical interpretations identified in the interview. The follow-up provides both parties with the opportunity to confirm, disconfirm, and supplement their views and perspectives. This process is valuable for both practice and research; organizational and structural developments are ongoing processes and the follow-up strengthens the understanding of the situation and can possibly also enhance further action being taken.

Supporting the process of bringing interview ideas into action

The process of bringing interview ideas into action is vulnerable, especially when a single interviewee is facing a large and inflexible organization. As a follow-up phase, the action-oriented interview therefore involves attention and initiatives to take part in bringing ideas into action. This might be by disseminating insight and ideas or by facilitating discussions that may lead to a common perspective among a broader range of persons. The follow-up could be the establishment of workshops, which could bring interviewees and other actors together around the action-oriented perspectives from the interviews. This could, for instance, be through processes inspired by future creating workshops (Jungk & Müllert, 1987), history workshops (Gensby & Husted, 2013), or learning history (Gearty et al., 2013). The type of initiative depends on the context of the themes, its systemic linkage, and the people involved. Processes like this could validate potential actions by including a general perspective and create a common ground among participants and researchers for the coordination of action. In some cases, a more informal and ad hoc follow-up may be relevant, whereas in other cases a more formal coordination plan may be appropriate. Such a coordination plan could clarify how next steps are taken and if they should be taken.