Relación entre los problemas de desempeño operacional y el rol de la

I introduced interviewing into my research in order to explore my informants’ understanding of specific topics that were particularly relevant to my inquiry, and to provide evidence to validate my findings. I conducted and audio- recorded informal semi-scripted interviews with twenty-eight of the Trust’s staff and volunteers. These interviewees became my sample for my study of the

social actors who participate in the everyday life of the reserve. Details of my informants’ roles in the reserve, age, education and the activities they take part in are listed in the table in the section entitled Informant Sample later in this chapter.

All of the interviewees had been involved with the reserve for over a year. Eighteen men and ten women were interviewed. The youngest volunteers were in their early twenties and the oldest in their early seventies. Of the twenty-eight individuals interviewed, ten were under thirty-nine years of age, four were aged between forty and sixty, and fourteen were over sixty years of age. All of the staff members were under forty, as were the bat monitors, except for the group leader Eric. My shortest interview lasted less than fifteen minutes and the longest was over an hour. However, in the fourteen-minute interview all of the questions from my interview schedule were answered as the informant gave concise but full answers. I personally transcribed all of the audio recordings. The second category I identified to aid my analyses are those who engage in activities that are directed towards the conservation management of the reserve’s woodland and wildlife. I further made a distinction between the paid employees of the Trust and unpaid volunteers. These categories were observable in the field from the way in which staff and volunteers conducted themselves, and from the social networks in which they engaged. I also distinguished between the general body of volunteers and bat monitoring volunteers as, although the latter also engaged in practical conservation management, they stood apart from the general body of volunteers and belonged to social networks that were less integrated with the other social networks of the reserve.

I distinguished between those who participate in general conservation activities and volunteers who engaged only in the monitoring of bats. Although spending a substantial amount of time in the reserve, the bat monitors, are not integrated into the wider social networks of the reserve and Trust. This contrasts starkly with the general conservation volunteers, who are the basis of the social networks of the reserve and to a lesser extent the Trust. Conservation volunteers were also further divided by how they contribute their time to the general

conservation work of the reserve and Trust. Fifteen volunteers contribute through taking part as volunteers on a Thursday, and make a substantial contribution to the enormous labour that the conservation of the reserve requires.

The staff and volunteers who became the focus of my study are few in number in relation to the total number of people who have some form of involvement in the everyday life of the reserve. In spite of this, they are the body of participants who engage in caring for the reserve and through their actions affect the way in which other social actors experience it. They also act as an interface between visitors and other participants and organisations that engage with the reserve. It falls to staff and volunteers to interpret the multiple wildlife discourses with which they are confronted before implementing these in the reserve. The staff and volunteers’ actions are, however, closely associated with the meaning that the reserve holds for them personally. The contributions that staff and volunteers make to the material well-being of the lives of the nonhumans of the reserve, are also linked to the meaning that the reserve has for them; whether poacher, staff member, volunteer, or dog walker, an individual’s involvement in the everyday life of the reserve is guided by what is meaningful to them personally. Individuals may be swayed by argument and discourse, but the foundations of their actions are closely associated with their biography and life trajectory.

Many individuals and organisations contribute to the everyday life of the reserve. Throughout my fieldwork I endeavoured to engage with whomsoever I could in order to gain the widest understanding of who participated in the everyday life of the reserve, and the context in which they did so. I achieved this through taking an open approach to what was within the scope of my participant observation fieldwork. I acquainted myself with a wide range of people and organisations that I ‘found’ engaging with the reserve. Fieldwork bought me into contact with poachers, rough-shooters, dog walkers, local, national and international visitors, walkers and runners, bird watchers, entomologists, foragers, green woodworkers, moth enthusiasts, forestry contractors, coppicers, school parties, university students, and corporate and

other volunteer groups. I also engaged with local residents and participated in a number of local community events in order to understand the local community’s relationships with Horwood, the Trust and the reserve. Since the Trust as owners and administrators of the reserve had a significant role in the everyday life of the reserve, I took part whenever possible, in meetings and events initiated by the trust at its headquarters and other reserves. Where possible I also cultivated relationships with Trust staff in order to understand the organisation’s policies, practices and social networks.

Interviews were normally conducted so as not to interfere with the dynamics of the activities taking place. Early in the day, I would clear it with the staff leader and then discuss with the interviewee when they thought it would be best to slip away to carry out an interview. A digital recorder was my constant companion. In the ‘interview’ literature arguments are made for the conducting of interviews in the research setting (Anderson, 2004). I accepted such arguments in all cases but one, and conducted all of my other interviews in the geographical proximity of the activity being undertaken. Interviewing in the field and in the close proximity of other staff and volunteers was problematic, as interviews were often interrupted if they took place near to a work party. Interruption and background noise were only a minor problem during the interviews themselves, but when I was transcribing interviews, volunteers’ mobile ringtones, wind blowing over the microphone and, on one occasion, a nest of twittering swallows created a major distraction during the transcription progress. Transcribing is a time-consuming and laborious process even at the best of times and is not improved when transcribing from low quality recordings. Recording in the field may have the advantage of not distancing the interview from the setting, however from my experience it introduced too many distractions, and I would in future interview in the field, but only if it was possible to withdraw into a quieter private space to carry out interviews.