Abstract
Interviewing Elites raises and expounds on an interesting issue: in this book it is decision-makers in the criminal system who are the ones being interviewed, rather than criminals. Given criminology’s almost inherent tendency towards the study of precarious populations and the victims of the penal system (offenders and the victims of those offenders, when they exist), the subject matter of this book is particularly interesting and necessary for criminology: even more so than for other social sciences. Under the guise of offering advice and good technical practice guidelines, Interviewing Elites raises important epistemological questions, in terms of both face-to-face interactions with this unique population and the potential professional consequences that engaging in these interactions could have for the researcher (access to public funds could be cut off and bureaucratic obstacles for future investigations may increase). These issues are of particular importance to the many criminologists whose access to data depends precisely on the people they would like to interview (and analyse).
On the whole, the categories’ “expert” and “powerful” are treated indistinctly in Interviewing Elites, even though Chapter 2 is spent thoroughly distinguishing and defining each concept. Here, access to resources is considered relevant as well as the ability to mobilize and guarantee or restrict access to them. In the case of probation officers, their knowledge is seen to potentially place them in a special position. It should not be forgotten that while the reports they fill out about those being sentenced certainly certify their status as experts, this does not exclude them from being characterized as powerful. Thus, the Foucauldian notion of power-knowledge is recalled to suggest that experts are also powerful, especially in the penal system, since their knowledge and reports determine how much freedom a person may access, as shown by the study on breach in the context of the supervision of those sentenced in Europe (Boone and Maguire, 2017).
The third chapter lays out the research tool: the interview. Though it may seem obvious, the authors do well to remember that the interview is a data production technique. Not only that, but that it is also a social situation imbued with power dynamics that need to be taken into consideration, especially when interviewing powerful people. The authors also review the different types of interviews, which they classify as: information-generating interviews; informal interviews; doxastic interviews; looking glass interviews; and epistemic interviews. Since they depart from a conception of the interview as an ongoing process, their suggestions for researchers to think carefully about the type of information most suited to the research in order to decide on interview type certainly makes sense. The fourth chapter deals with types of sampling and the criteria suited to studying this population: a population from whom it is generally difficult to obtain collaboration that is not subject to conditions that may compromise the independence of the research. While there is room for improvement regarding the discussion of sampling types (especially in terms of their use of statistical concepts), this chapter makes a particularly important contribution thanks to the detailed examples offered relating to gaining access to the field and to the, sometimes more difficult, task of remaining in the field once access has been gained. The use of text boxes containing research extracts is particularly useful here, as well as being one of the formatting features I liked most.
Chapters 5 and 6 are, to my mind, the most interesting chapters in the book. They deal with preparing and conducting interviews. With respect to the preparation of interviews, special emphasis is placed on the fact that the interviewees are experts in a subject, and that the interviewer must be versatile: they need to show they know things about the subject without making the interview seem pointless. To do this, moments of naivety must be incorporated to allow questions to be asked and let the interviewee feel that he or she is the one with knowledge on the topic. In addition to having in-depth knowledge on the topic, the authors advise keeping up to date with the current debates prevalent for this group, above all as a way of livening-up the conversation and of maintaining and/or regaining the interviewees interest in the topics discussed. This chapter ends with tips for preparing the script (which differs from a list of questions) and with several standard tips on how to ask questions in a way that does not condition the answer and that allows you to maintain and respect the flow of conversation – mainly by being flexible.
The sixth chapter begins by giving advice on how to introduce yourself; because contact with this type of population is usually made through acquaintances, the status and value with which the powerful perceive the interviewer can be a determining factor in the interest the interviewee takes in the conversation (and sometimes has to be renegotiated). At the same time, advice on how (not) to answer the questions asked by the interviewees is particularly useful: they are usually interested in the topic and are used to being the ones who ask the questions and direct the interaction, so it is to be expected that they will be asking questions. Guidelines are also given for asking about sensitive issues (which, in the context of the penal system can be applied to any question that points to a breach in legally established procedures). Room is also made for ethical considerations. What stood out for me here was the argument that research ethics (traditionally designed to respect those we study, usually from a position of power ourselves) are conceived as potentially different when dealing with the powerful. A few notes on choosing the ideal site to conduct the interview bring the chapter to a close.
The last chapter focuses on data analysis: there is less practical advice in this chapter than in any of the others, and much of it is dedicated to transcribing interviews and keeping a field diary. The advice here on coding is valuable, although it points to perennial debates about deductive and inductive research and the possibility of creating categories without any theoretical framework (even our unconscious ones). The invitation to analyse data in relation to previous work on the topic is very welcome, and, so too, perhaps to a greater extent, is their advocacy for personal and epistemological reflexivity as the main mechanism of control over the various biases that inevitably end up shaping research. Since external control is sometimes more effective than self-control, they also defend transparency as a mechanism of reliability, specifically through the thorough documentation of the entire process of fieldwork.
Interviewing Elites, in short, is a practice-oriented book. Though undoubtedly one of its strengths, this is also, I think, the book’s main weakness. This is not just about the fact that theory is also practical: thicker theoretical discussion could have afforded greater depth to this study. In a way, this book works better as a supplement to other books: it does not do a good job at justifying the relevance of interviewing people in social sciences, neither does it develop (in any great depth) the interesting questions raised by the very existence of these experts and/or powerful people in criminology. I understand that this is not the main objective of the book, however, there are a number of issues which are referenced in passing that could have been addressed in more depth, given that the book is less than 170 pages long. Potentially, the text could be improved with the addition of another chapter with a methodological justification for the use of interviews (which would need to be theoretical), or by using text boxes (like those used to show detailed research examples) when important ideas or authors are referenced. Regarding the existing text boxes, although it is undoubtedly an advantage that the authors refer to research they know first-hand, the recurrent use of references to their own work, which has been published only recently and was based on doctoral theses, means that the reader is unlikely to be familiar with the examples. However, using examples from works the reader could be expected to have read does not seem to offer an ideal solution since that would reproduce canons about who the experts in criminology are, and they, by cause or effect, are usually also the powerful.
My suggestions here about potential lacunae in Interviewing Elites are meant to act, not as criticism, but rather as a warning to readers who might be hoping this book will solve all their doubts. I have enjoyed reading about this subject; it is not one that receives much attention. The book is particularly useful for those preparing for fieldwork who are not planning to study the kind of people the penal system is designed to detect, judge and lock up – the kind of people criminology is designed to study.