Roy Sainsbury

‘Am I not answering your questions properly?’ : Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews

This article considers spoken interaction in semi-structured qualitative research interviews, comparing those that are conducted by telephone or face-to-face. It draws upon recent empirical research that illuminated some of the differences that may be observed between these two interview modes. Methodological techniques drawn from Conversation Analysis were used to conduct a systematic and transparent comparison of the interview interactions, focusing on the spoken interactional devices that researcher and interviewee employ in order to pursue and maintain a collaborative and comprehensible dialogue. The article begins with an overview of previous discussion on the interactional effects of the telephone in qualitative interviews. Here, we find that while instructional texts have traditionally advised that the telephone mode is not well-suited to the task of qualitative interviewing – primarily because the lack of face-to-face contact is said to restrict the development of rapport and a ‘natural’ encounter – researchers giving personal accounts of conducting telephone interviews tend to offer more nuanced or critical reflections on the extent to which the lack of visual cues affects the interaction in practice. Empirical findings are then presented on: formulation and completion, clarification and comprehension, acknowledgement, interviewees’ checks on the ‘adequacy’ of their talk, and the duration of interviews. Key findings were that: completion or formulation of interviewee talk by the researcher was more common in face-to-face interviews; interviewee requests for clarification were slightly more common in telephone interviews; vocalized acknowledgements given by the researcher were less frequent in telephone interviews; interviewee checks on the adequacy of their responses were more common in telephone interviews; and telephone interviews tended to be shorter than those conducted face-to-face. The article discusses possible explanations for the findings that emerge alongside consideration of some potential implications.

Exploring ‘Quality’: Research Participants’ Perspectives on Verbatim Quotations

Support for inclusion of verbatim quotations from research participants in reporting qualitative applied social research is strengthened by evaluative tools which point to presentation of extracts of original data as an indication of clarity of links between data, interpretation and conclusion. This article contributes to discussion about ‘quality’ criteria and the role of verbatim quotations from the perspectives of those who speak the words. The authors describe an exploratory empirical study to test the impact on research participants of seeing their words in a report. This small study is part of a wider, Economic and Social Research Council‐funded study of the theory, practice and impact of using verbatim quotations in reporting applied social research. Findings from the exploratory study raise important issues. Research participants preferred the version of the report which included spoken words, and saw ways in which spoken words contributed positively to interpretation and reporting. However, the ‘quality indicators’ perceived in relation to the verbatim quotations sometimes did not reflect the authors’ intentions in selecting and using the words. Participants had strong views on ethical issues associated with use of their spoken words. Maintaining anonymity was important, as was the way they perceived themselves represented as a result of the authors’ editing decisions and the form of the attributions at the end of the quotations. The study raises questions about how far and in what way the perspectives of research participants should be taken into account in judging the ‘quality’ of qualitative research.

Personal Adviser Interviews With Benefits Claimants in UK Jobcentres

We report on a study commissioned by the UK government of the ways in which advisers conduct mandatory interviews with unemployment benefits claimants. Among other results, we identified practices in soliciting claimants’ job goals and job plans that were more, or less, effective in achieving desired outcomes during these interactions. Moreover, we found that making a calculation of how much better off a claimant would be by retaining some benefit and working part-time was ineffective. Our reports, recommendations, and presentation to officials of the Department of Work & Pensions were acknowledged to have influenced policy changes concerning Jobcentre service delivery. Data are in British English.

Administrative justice, discretion and the ‘welfare to work’ project

In this special edition of the journal to mark the retirement of Martin Partington, I am sure it is permissible to depart from the usual protocols of the academic article to say something unashamedly personal and subjective. I will not go overboard, but I will say that the decision of the editors to use the journal for such a purpose seemed entirely justified and appropriate given Martin Partington’s contribution to the analysis and practice of administrative law and to socio-legal research. Martin’s scholarship is there for all to see, but what will have gone unseen, I suspect, and something I have benefited from, is his constructive engagement, encouragement and advice to people less knowledgeable and experienced than himself. To be asked to contribute to this volume gave me one of the easiest decisions I have made for a long time. Given Martin’s longstanding interest in administrative justice (including the establishment of the Centre for the Study of Administrative Justice at the University of Bristol in the 1990s), it seemed opportune to revisit its relevance to some contemporary developments in the field of social welfare. In the introduction to the seminal book he edited with Michael Harris, Administrative justice in the 21st century (1999), we find a fair summing up of the state of the debate in 1997: ‘... there is considerable disagreement about the meaning of the concept of ‘‘administrative justice’’’ (Harris and Partington 1999, p. 2). One of the areas of disagreement was about whether administrative justice was relevant at the level of initial decisions made by the thousands of organisations implementing public policy or whether it should be confined to appeals and redress mechanisms, i.e. to the world of tribunals and courts. That disagreement probably continues ten years on, but if one surveys the literature on administrative justice then there is a strong case for arguing that there has been a shift towards a more inclusive view of administrative justice. Harris and Partington certainly shared this view by aligning themselves with many of the contributors to their edited volume whose perception of ‘... administrative justice ... embraces the whole range of decision-taking, from an initial decision to the ultimate level of appeal’ (1999, p. 2). That administrative justice has relevance to initial decision-making is important to emphasise because it is at this level that most people have any contact with the organisations making decisions that affect their lives. So, if we have any concern to improve the interactions between citizens and the state then we are likely to

Using a model of group psychotherapy to support social research on sensitive topics

This article describes the exploratory use of professional therapeutic support by social researchers working on a sensitive topic. Talking to recently bereaved parents about the financial implications of their child’s death was expected to be demanding work, and the research design included access to an independent psychotherapeutic service. Using this kind of professional support is rare within the general social research community, and it is useful to reflect on the process. There are likely to be implications for collection and interpretation of data, research output and the role and experience of the therapist. Here, the primary focus is the potential impact on researcher well‐being.

Putting Personalisation into Practice: Work-Focused Interviews in Jobcentre Plus

The principle of personalisation is widespread across the UKs public sector, but precisely what this means is unclear. A number of theoretical typologies have been proposed but there has been little empirical study of how personalisation is translated into practice on the frontline. We address this gap through analysis of a unique dataset: over 200 audio and video recordings of work-focused interviews in Jobcentre Plus offices. Through detailed analysis of these recordings, we show that personalisation reflects two key dimensions: the substantive (what advisers do) and the procedural (how they do it). We illustrate these dimensions, showing how each represents a continuum, and propose a typology of personalisation in practice, reflecting how the dimensions interact. We conclude with some thoughts on the relevance of our findings for advisory practice in the future under the Coalition governments new Work Programme.

Should Mandatory Jobseeker Interviews be Personalised? The Politics of Using Conversation Analysis to Make Effective Practice Recommendations

With the economic downturn of 2009, Jobcentre Plus, the UK service that gives employment advice and administers unemployment benefits, has come under increased media scrutiny. Can it deliver the personalised service it purports to offer, given the 90 per cent increase in number of claimants arriving at its doors? The media have been sceptical, even hostile. It is not uncommon to see stories of claimants feeling ‘processed’ through an impersonal and callous system, as in this horror story in The Times: A friend of mine — let’s call her Gill — was one of six directors recently made redundant by a well-known UK consortium… So, like you, me or any raw school-leaver, she Googled ‘job centre’ and phoned the number on the website. There follows a tale of such humiliation, misunderstanding and Stalinist bureaucracy that, on reading it, the shivers will run up the spine of every white-collar worker in the land. (Reid, 2008, p. 20)

When a child dies: Money matters

The financial implications of a death are rarely discussed--indeed, in the case of a childs death, almost never. This article describes an exploratory study conducted in the United Kingdom in response to the belief of staff in a childrens hospice that for many bereaved parents, the nature and extent of their financial problems were obstructing the effectiveness of support and help available to deal with emotional aspects of grief and loss. Findings from depth interviews with bereaved parents and staff in health and care services, and a questionnaire sent to all U.K. childrens hospices, throw light on the reasons for and the impact of financial problems. Findings provide a number of pointers to ways of improving support for parents whose child dies. At the same time, findings provide strong arguments for including money in debate about dealing with death in contemporary society.

Talking Universal Credit : in conversation with Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform

This article draws on an interview with Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform since May 2010, and explores the origins of Universal Credit and how it was turned over the course of five years or so from an aspirational idea into a detailed blueprint for change and finally into legislation in the form of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. What emerges is an intriguing case study in British policy making. At the time of the interview in July 2013 the implementation of Universal Credit had just begun in a small number of pilot areas. Lord Freud also discusses the objectives of Universal Credit and when and how we will know whether these are being met.