Key informants involved in interviews were identified according to the elite snowballing technique described. One of the strongest advantages of elite interviews is that they enable researchers to interview first-hand participants of the processes under investigation, allowing for accounts from direct witnesses to the events in question (Dunn 2000). While documents and other sources may provide detailed accounts, there is often no substitute for talking directly with those involved and gaining insights from key participants (Hammer and Wildavsky 1989). The nature of interviewing also allows interviewers to probe their subjects, and thus move beyond written accounts that may often represent an official version of events, and gather information about the underlying context, and build up to the actions that took place (Huberman and Miles 2002). When interviewees have been significant players, when their memories are strong, and when they are willing to disclose their knowledge of events in an impartial manner, elite interviews will arguably be the most important instrument in the data collection toolkit (Tansey no date).
The selection of key informants and conduct of interviews was able to be continued throughout the research as new informants were identified through networks of contacts. Diversity of opinion was sought. Site visits provided ample opportunity for interview and in such instances, key informants were selected on the basis of their involvement (past or present) with the BR. At other times, more general specialists were sought, whose knowledge represented a broader and general expertise on BRs or protected area management. For example, national environmental department employees were chosen with several decades of intermittent national BRP involvement. A total of 52 key informant interviews were conducted. Of the data arising from these interviews, some is included verbatim in the thesis. All data informs the work, regardless of its inclusion in-text.
An inductive and abductive approach to observation and interviews helped shape the collection of data in the field. Locations of interviews were arranged in advance where possible and generally occurred within homes, offices, cafes or universities. Where formal interview appointments were not made (for instance, a chance meeting), a conversational type interview would ensue. Interview questions selected for the interview schedule were descriptive, knowledge-based, devil’s advocate and opinion types, as outlined by Dunn (2000). Interviews followed a semi-structured format, allowing for the specific story of the key informant to be revealed through discussion, as influenced by their experience, involvement, employment or opinion of BRs. For instance, interviews would begin with an introduction and overview of the project and the aim of the interview. This would differ according to the key informant. Information sought from a federal government protected area manager was
29 different to the information sought from a local BR committee member, as their experiences and worldview had insights at different scales (national versus local). Interviews were often conversational, building upon the issues discussed and eliciting information that would have been masked using a structured approach. An example interview schedule and consent form is provided in Appendix A. As many interviews were informal, conversational types this interview schedule provides an indication only, and represents a semi-structured type.
Interviews were recorded but when a recording was not appropriate, for example due to noise, extensive notes were taken. Notes provided a useful benchmark for all interviews. Recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. The interview data was de-identified using a code,to protect informant identity and offer consistency throughout the data presentation. Consistency of identification is an issue as not every informant agreed to be identified. The approach to grouping the informants was decided upon as most appropriate means to de-identify, but still provide indication of the informant’s BR experience and background. The code categorises key informants into three groups for each country, which gives context to the knowledge base from which the comment or information is derived. Only Australian informants are referenced in the Australian case studies, an likewise, only Canadians in Canadian case studies due to the nature of expert knowledge encountered, which was found to be limited to national contexts. Multiple categories can be applied to an individual key informant, for instance if they fulfil an academic and a champion role. The codes used were:
• A – Academic (natural resources, planning, environment, ecology, sustainability); • C – Champion (voluntary contribution to a BR and / or BRP, generally showing an
outstanding level of commitment);
• E – Employee (works in relation to BRs, funded either directly by a BR or the Canadian Biosphere Reserve Association (CBRA), or indirectly, by related government sectors partnering in BRs); and
• P – Public servant (local, provincial/ state or federal government agency).
First-hand perspectives provide candid opinion that could be considered contentious. These perspectives can only be acquired through lived experience and dialogue with those who have that experience. Words and vernacular used by informants captured their individual views, describing their own experiences and perceptions. The key informant non-academic text conveyed their lived experiences and provided the best representation of their meaning. For this reason, direct quotes have been included in the thesis to illuminate these lived experiences that are often absent from the academic text and representation of theory around BRs.
The quotes provide a change of pace to the formal and impersonal literature data, enriching and aiding understanding of the mosaic represented by each BR: the people, place, networks, communities, environments and histories that make social-ecological places. The data, presented in this way, ‘… speaks, in the same sense that a poem speaks, about meaning, about thematic statements’ (Lukiv 2004: no page).
30