This post explores interview techniques and reflections related to interviewing activists focusing on pro-Palestinian advocacy in Vienna, Austria. Digital activism, as a subfield of communication for social change, offers valuable insights into how loosely affiliated political groups utilize digital tools like social media to advance their goals and how they navigate challenges like digital repression.
Background and Initial Contact
The reflections are based on two interviews conducted in Vienna in October 2024. For anonymity, names, places, and specific dates have been omitted to prevent identification, as these interviews are tied to sensitive issues.
I am part of a collective that organizes a queer-feminist, migrant community space in Vienna and am active in various social justice movements. My connection with one of the interviewees, H., began at an event they organized at our space. At the beginning of October, I attended their community dinner, assisting with technical setup and kitchen tasks. This initial collaboration fostered a sense of mutual support, typical of activist spaces.
During this event, I asked H. if they would participate in an academic interview focused on pro-Palestinian activism in Europe. H. agreed, partly as a gesture of reciprocity for the support we provided for their event. I emphasized that participation was voluntary, which H. appreciated. They also suggested I speak with other groups.
That evening, H. introduced me to my second interviewee, G., a member of another pro-Palestinian group focused on organizing queer individuals. While I had seen G. in other contexts, we had not interacted before. G. provided a brief introduction to their group and agreed to a later interview.
Interview Guiding Questions
Before the interviews, I shared a document outlining the research direction and questions. The general topic was digital pro-Palestinian activism post-October 7, 2023, focusing on censorship and repression online and offline. Interview questions included:
- Why do you use social media platforms and how do they support or hinder your political objectives? What safety concerns have you faced on such platforms?
- Have you experienced censorship on social media (e.g., banning, shadow-banning, content moderation)?
- What has been your experience with cyberattacks, hate comments, or disinformation on social media platforms? Who do you perceive as responsible?
- What responses have you observed when posting videos of police brutality?
- What forms of offline censorship have you encountered, and from whom?
The interviews were semi-structured, with flexibility to adapt the question order based on the conversation’s flow.
Interview 1: H.
Preparation and Consent
H. consented to a recorded interview, which took place before a movie screening organized by their collective at our space. The interview lasted about 15 minutes.
Reflection and Rapport
Despite our rapport, H. seemed somewhat hesitant during the interview. The sensitive nature of pro-Palestinian activism in Vienna, often perceived as radical and repressed, may have contributed to this hesitance. Additionally, time constraints before the event and the specificity of some questions, which may not have aligned with H.’s group’s social media activities, likely played a role.
Post-interview, I kept H. informed about how the material would be used, seeking consent for potential non-academic applications, such as articles for an Italian-language non-profit media outlet. H. approved, trusting that their identity would remain protected and the material used responsibly.
Interview 2: G.
Preparation and Consent
The interview with G. occurred weeks later, in person, at the same community space due to security concerns about using online platforms. G. prepared extensively, using the shared questions to make notes. This illustrated how interviews can co-create meaning when participants view them as opportunities for communication. This interview was also recorded.
Reflection and Rapport
The interview lasted nearly an hour and felt friendly and collaborative. G. expressed strong interest in reviewing the draft before publication and requested that their audio not be used unless anonymized. We agreed on a process to ensure their comfort with the final material.
After transcribing and editing the interview, I shared it with G. for review. They provided feedback to clarify certain points, ensuring their views were accurately represented.
Final Thoughts
Structure of the interview
The two interviews shared similarities in format and setting but differed in depth and dynamics. Communication with H. flowed easily before the interview, but the conversation itself was brief and restrained. In contrast, scheduling with G. was initially challenging, but the eventual interview was in-depth and productive. Recording both interviews proved essential for staying present during the conversations and accurately transcribing later.
One key takeaway from this experience is the importance of maintaining flexibility with interview questions. When I drafted the questions, I primarily had G.’s group in mind, which became evident during the interview with H. The two groups have distinct communication styles and objectives. One prioritizes fostering connections among activists without direct involvement in street activities or issuing political statements on social media, while the other is more active in demonstrations and in posting political content online. Consequently, their experiences with repression differ significantly, with one group encountering it far more frequently than the other.
Motivations for participating in the interviews also varied. H. appeared motivated by reciprocity and the desire to strengthen collaborative relationships, aligning with their role in fostering dialogue and community exchange. In contrast, G. aimed to advance a specific discourse, reflecting their group’s collective objectives rather than personal experiences.
Importance of trust & power dynamics
In terms of rapport, these interview experiences underscored the importance of trust and shared practices, especially for sensitive topics such as activism in a context where the political opinions investigated are being actively suppressed by the state and other agents. Both interviews benefited from our existing connections through the community space, which fostered mutual understanding and trust. This foundation likely made participants more open, recognizing my political alignment and commitment to ethical use of their insights.
The sensitivity of the topic raised important questions about security and ethical use of interview material. I revised my initial plan to conduct one interview on Zoom due to participants’ security concerns with this digital platform. Additionally, I prioritized my activist identity over my academic role to build trust, offering an additional round of feedback on the edited material before its use. This approach empowered participants, giving them control over how their statements were represented.
My concerns with activists’ perspective being represented, influenced the design of the interviews from the start. For example, I used open-ended questions to explore participants’ perceptions of repression, focusing on their interpretations rather than strict facts. I aimed to represent their statements faithfully and analyze how the perception of repression and surveillance impacts social media use.
Balancing Participant Empowerment and Academic Constraints
Providing participants the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the material worked well within an academic exercise. However, I reflected on the challenges posed by professional or academic pressures where power dynamics are more pronounced. For instance, could participants still feel empowered when a research design involves fact-finding beyond perception? If triangulated data revealed discrepancies between perception and reality, would they remain comfortable sharing their views, especially if the findings diverged from their political stance?
I also considered how prioritizing academic roles might alter the researcher-participant relationship in different contexts. In a larger, funded research project, for example, time constraints might prevent offering participants additional feedback rounds. Researchers in such settings might have less control over how material is used, as institutional priorities often dictate these decisions. Meeting professional obligations or maintaining employment in such environments could lead to less flexibility and limit the participant-centered approach feasible in smaller-scale studies.
In conclusion, this exploration of interviews with pro-Palestinian activists highlights the complexities of conducting ethical and collaborative research in sensitive contexts. The exercise underscores the importance of trust, flexibility, and participant empowerment, especially when addressing topics tied to political repression and surveillance. While the approach proved effective in an academic setting, reflections on power dynamics and institutional constraints reveal the potential challenges of maintaining these principles in larger, more rigid research frameworks. Ultimately, this experience reaffirms the value of prioritizing participants’ voices and ensuring their comfort and agency throughout the research process.
Clau Tatangelo
