Rome, Italy. La Città dell’Utopia from above.
The participants
As someone currently involved in a journalistic project, when I set out to complete this task, I already knew how difficult, potentially burdensome, even, the whole process could become, especially when you try to make contact with a complete stranger. So, to make things a bit easier for myself, I thought that asking several people I already knew to some extent would maximise my chances of getting the interviews done as quickly and efficiently as possible. Originally, I had contacted four or five potential participants. I finally managed to interview two of them, David and Fabrizio.
My first interview was a phone interview on October 27th with David, who runs his own company and develops social intervention projects in socioeconomically marginalised communities in Madrid. His work includes educational programs to facilitate Spanish language acquisition for migrant and refugee communities in collaboration with major NGOs in the country, such as CEAR, and initiatives promoting active citizenship. I had originally connected with David while looking for job opportunities in the migration field, so when it came time to reach out for the interview, we already had an established rapport.
Fabrizio, on the other hand, is the main coordinator of the Rome branch of Service Civil International Italy. Service Civil International is a volunteer organisation that promotes a culture of peace and focuses on climate issues, refugees and migrants, women’s rights, culture, and antimilitarism. They achieve this through work camps, events, training courses, and long-term volunteering programmes, including exchanges across Europe via the European Solidarity Corps and worldwide. In Rome, their main project, La Città dell’Utopia, provides a space for local collectives and NGOs to organise, host events and share ideas. Fabrizio and I met when I was volunteering at La Città dell’Utopia, where our interview took place on November 2.
The Interviews
I chose a semi-structured interview format with open-ended questions that allowed space for follow-up. I wanted to create an open dialogue where both participants could express themselves freely and share their perspectives on their jobs. This idea matches Holstein and Gubrium’s argument in The Active Interview (1995), where they see interviews as joint efforts to create meaning instead of just collecting data.
This approach meant that my conversations with David and Fabrizio felt less like a formal Q&A session and more like a dynamic dialogue. My first question was designed to encourage them to talk about their backgrounds and their connections to their work, which helped to break the ice and create a comfortable atmosphere. Later questions went deeper into the specifics: their roles, the nature of their work, challenges, etc. The questions asked were as followed:
For David:
- Tell me a bit about yourself and what drew you to this type of work.
- What are some of the current projects your are working on or involved with?
- What are some of the biggest challenges you faced? And your biggest achievements?
- Follow-up question: In your experience, what are some of the most problematic aspects in the field?
For Fabrizio:
- What inspired you to join Service Civil International, and what drew you to this type of work?
- Can you share a memorable experience or project that has had a significant impact on you personally?
- Can you tell me a bit about the main mission and goals of Service Civil International?
- Follow-up question: How can individuals or communities get involved with SCI, and what impact can they have by supporting your mission?
Establishing Rapport and the Interview Tone with David and Fabrizio
As I mentioned before, I first contacted David while looking for a job. The first contact was made through a family member. Having a previous connection probably helped reduce some initial awkwardness, and made our interaction quite friendly from the beginning. The interview felt positive and conversational. David was open to my questions and felt comfortable talking about his work on projects like educational programs for migrants and citizenship initiatives. This created a space for an honest conversation.
La Città dell’Utopia’s loggia, connecting to the garden and outdoor spaces.
My connection with Fabrizio, on the other hand, had been limited to the workplace. We didn’t work closely or socialise outside of work, which is why I thought of him as a suitable participant. However, he was still familiar to me. I found that this initial familiarity helped establish a rapport similar to my experience with David.
Our mutual connection helped build a fluid interaction, something that Holstein and Gubrium (1995) describe as essential for active engagement in an interview. The authors emphasise the construction of meaning between the interviewer and interviewee. I found this very helpful as I encouraged both David and Fabrizio to elaborate on their experiences and perspectives.
Anticipated Differences Between In-Person and Phone Interviews
I expected differences in rapport and dynamics between in-person and phone interviews. In-person allows one to read the participant’s body language and non-verbal cues and provides a sense of presence (Trier-Beniek 2012: 636). All this helps to build a positive relationship between the interviewer and the interviewees. It also allows for the collection of visual material, which often complements the final presentation.
For the phone interview, I decided to prioritise the participant’s needs (ibid.: 641). Initially, I expected it to feel less personal and anticipated potential technical interruptions or challenges in maintaining engagement. Nonetheless, this was far from the truth in this case. As the interview consisted of only three main questions and a follow-up question, it turned out to be quick, convenient for both of us and flowed smoothly.
Personal Learning and Professional Development
While setting up these interviews, I ran into some unexpected challenges that taught me a lot about recruiting participants and handling the interview process. To begin with, although I knew a few people in the field, finding suitable participants was harder than I originally thought, with many either not responding or unavailable, which made it uncomfortable to keep following up. I realised how much interviews rely on patience and the cooperation of others. On top of that, the Zoom interview with David, the first participant, had to be done over the phone at his request, since he didn’t have time for a video call. This last-minute change meant I had to adjust quickly to a different setup. Even though it turned out to be a very smooth, light-hearted interview, this might not always be the case. Delays and last-minute changes can be very stressful when you have to meet deadlines in a work or academic context, which might make it an unsuitable method in some situations.
Photography Exhibition at La Città dell’Utopia.
Another take from this experience is that interviewing is a skill that requires adaptability, patience, and sensitivity to participants’ availability and comfort. I’ve realised the importance of balancing persistence in securing interviews with respect for participants’ time and boundaries. It has also expanded my understanding of interviews as interactive and evolving processes, in line with Holstein and Gubrium (1995).
In the context of Communication for Development (C4D), these skills are very important. Interviews are useful for understanding community narratives, and knowing how to engage participants actively is essential to any research process. On the other hand, last-minute changes or delays can create pressure. Therefore, it is essential to plan ahead and build in extra time to accommodate any issues that may arise. This ensures that the quality of the research does not suffer due to time constraints.
References:
Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (1995). The active interview. SAGE Publications.
Trier-Bieniek, A. (2012). ‘Framing the telephone interview as a participant-centred tool for qualitative research: A methodological discussion.’ Qualitative Research, 12 (6), 630-644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439005
