as IIC whereas it was not the case for all the other experts. Of the seven participants from the ATSB, three of them were holding management position as well as being involved in investigations.
Fourteen interviews were conducted in the participants’ workplace, after agreeing on a convenient date and place. Three interviews were conducted in an improvised area during a conference and one at the interviewee’s home.
Given the desire to conduct the interviews face-to-face rather than by Skype, it was necessary to travel to Australia to facilitate this. This was arranged by making contact with potential participants (most of whom worked for the ATSB) by e-mail. Seven interviews were subsequently held in the Canberra and Brisbane offices of the ATSB in November 2014. Some interviewees also suggested contacting additional participants based at other institutions.
Subsequently, ten further interviews were arranged with participants from Sydney, Brisbane, Canberra and Melbourne.
VI- 3- 3 Interview schedule and conducting the interviews
An interview schedule is a list of questions or topics that are to be approached during each interview. In the case of semi-structured interviews, following this schedule can be done in a flexible way. Here, the interview schedule was based on topics from findings from previously conducted research (presented in Chapter I), the challenges and issues identified in the literature review (Chapter
II) and the reports analysis (Chapter IV) as well as the findings from the questionnaire in Chapter V. The purpose of these interviews was to obtain a greater insight on human factors investigation, the human factors knowledge and training of investigators and understand the experts’ role during an investigation, thus fulfilling, in part, the fourth research objective.
Before conducting the interviews, a practice or ‘pilot’ interview was conducted with an HF consultant based at a well-known multi-national consulting firm. The purpose of this was so that the interview could be tested ‘in the field’ in order to practice the order and wording of the questions as well as logistical issues such as using the audio recorder and keeping the interview to time. Following the pilot interview, a number of small adjustments to the interview schedule were made. These minor changes included shortening the wording of some questions so that they were more succinct and sounded less formal when they were delivered. From a technical standpoint, it was found that the recording was clearer when the sensitivity on the audio recorder was increased.
To start the interview, the researcher introduced herself, asked the participant whether the interviews could be recorded for analysis purposes and gave the interview guide to the participant. The first question in each interview was an introductory question, requesting information on the participant’s background:
‘Could you tell me about your background and how you arrived in your position?’
The purpose of this question was to make the participant and the interviewer comfortable and at ease, because it is easy to answer and covers familiar territory, whilst also providing valuable information for the researcher
qualitative interviewing as a ‘warm-up’ question (Robson, 2002). The question led to developed and rich answers from the interviewees regarding their experiences in accident investigation but also their academic background.
While some investigators spontaneously elaborated on their role within their organisation, others where specifically asked the following question: ‘Can you tell me about your role within your organisation?’. The objective of this question was to better understand the role of human factors investigators within their organisation, and the process of a human factors investigation generally. The questionnaire in Chapter V highlighted that human factors experts tended not to receive training in areas such as ‘management of large site’ or ‘dealing with inquest, legal skills’ so this question also gave relevant information on whether or not they were deployed on site, at what point they were involved in an investigation, and the sort of responsibilities they were given.
From that point, the researcher entered the ‘main body of interview’ (Robson, 2002, p277). The following question, if not raised naturally by the interviewee, regarded the methodology employed during an investigation. ‘Regarding data gathering and analysis, do you use any sort of tool or methodology?’ The literature review (Chapter II) highlighted the importance of accident investigation methodology, whereas the analysis of accident reports (Chapter IV) highlighted that not all investigations involve the use of such methodology, or at least that it is not specified in the reports. The purpose of this question was to understand the benefits and drawbacks of employing methodological tools during an investigation, from a human factors perspective.
Considering the findings from the questionnaire in Chapter V, regarding the human factors training deficiencies for accident investigators, and the different levels of human factors element in accident reports identified in the literature and in the reports analysis, an important question was then ‘How is your human factors input received by the other accident investigators?’ This question often naturally led to the interviewees mentioning the training of the investigators.
They were then asked to describe the advantages and disadvantages of such training.
Another question was ‘Do you think HF consideration in accident investigation could be improved?’ The purpose of this question was to understand what could be done to achieve more thorough the accident investigation process. A common follow up question to this was, for example ‘What do you think are the other challenges of human factors investigation?’
Another topic approached during the interviews was ‘understanding and training at management level’. The purpose of this question was to understand the influence of the management’s understanding of human factors on the way human factors is investigated in an organisation.
The following topic approached during the interview was the value of human factors and dedicated human factors expertise. One of the main findings from analysis in Chapter I was the need for a dedicated expert who understands the needs of the organisation. Moreover, the literature (Chapter II) highlighted the necessity to involve a human factors specialist during an investigation. With this in mind, the question ‘What do you think is the value of human factors integration in accident investigation?’ was included, followed by ‘What do you think makes a
factors investigators’ point of view on the impact of the involvement of a human factors specialist in an investigation, and to identify the attributes that a ‘good’
human factors specialist involved in accident investigation should possess.
Another key challenge identified in Chapter I is the depth of human factors element within the context of a full air accident investigation. Therefore it was a significant topic for this part of the interview. In order to gather the human factors specialists’ perspective on such an issue, questions were: ‘How deep do you go into human factors?’, ‘When do you know when to stop looking?’, and ‘How to address the balance between technical and human factors during an investigation?’. Subsequently, another question for this theme, influenced by the findings from the questionnaire about the deficiencies in training regarding organisational issues investigation was ‘How do you address organisational issues’.
Finally, the interviewees were asked whether they had any other comments on the topics approached during the interview. They were then thanked and the recorder was switched off.
VI- 4 Thematic analysis and coding process
Each interview was audio recorded for analysis purposes. The recordings were fully transcribed by the researcher so as not to lose any information. Analysis was then conducted on the transcripts of these interviews and taking into account the researcher’s notes taken during the interviews.