1  

Christian Herzog, Leuphana University Lüneburg Christopher Ali, University of Virginia

Elite interviewing in media and communications policy research Published in International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics 11(1): 37–54 Abstract This article critically examines the use of elite interviews in media and communications policy research. It addresses the fit between various analytical frameworks and elite interviews as a primary source of data, interviewee selection, access, the conduct of interviews and data analysis. It is argued that there is a lack of methodological explanation and reflection in our field of study. Partly this is determined by the preferences of publishers and space constrains but also a widespread reluctance to engage with methodological issues. This contributes to the diminishing relevance of large amounts of scholarship for policy-makers who tend to privilege studies based on narrowly defined and soundly elaborated empirical methods. Clear and concise methodological rigour, systematization and ethnographic reflexivity, thus, play an incredibly important role. Keywords media policy, communications policy, elite interviews, methods of media policy, critical political economy, critical discourse analysis Funding Herzog’s contribution to this article was funded by the EU Innovation Incubator at Leuphana University Lüneburg. Ali’s contribution to this article was funded by a doctoral award from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, under grant 752-2011-0185.

  2  

Introduction There is a considerable amount of social sciences scholarship that is based on elite interview data. A subject area in which the approach is well-established is media and communications policy. Despite the prevalence of use of elite interviewing as a research method, however, scholars of both media and communications policy have often failed to avail themselves of this methodological scholarship. According to Sarikakis media and communications policy describes ‘the sum of broad political ideas and guiding principles about the function of the mass media with respect to content, ownership, technical infrastructure and technological development; but also in terms of the relationship to market, state and public’ (2004). In fact, media policy and communications policy are two separate overlapping fields. The study of media policy involves wider public interest considerations and is driven by sociocultural concerns. Following from this, it borrows from sociology, political sciences, anthropology and history. Communications policy scholarship is more concerned with information and communication technology (ICT) and legal sciences takes a more prominent role. Technological and in some instances regulatory convergence has, of course, blurred the boundaries between the two and this has an effect on research (see Braman 2004). Despite certain epistemic differences, scholars in both fields have often relied on elite interviews as part of their research designs.

This article starts from the observation that ethnographic approaches are relegated to a niche existence in both media and communications policy studies, though even more so in the latter. Following Kaplan’s dictum ‘the aim of methodology is to help us to understand, in the broadest possible terms, not the products of scientific inquiry but the process itself’ (1964: 23, original emphasis), we argue in favour of the more widespread inclusion of the methodological reflexivity of ethnography in media and communications policy research. Though this argument has a more universal applicability and is advanced under the heading research transparency (see Moravcsik 2014), we limit the scope of our investigation to the use of elite interviews.1 Some of the many authors who have used elite interviews as a principal source of data in their studies include Freedman (2003, 2008), Born (2004), Barnett and Curry (1994), Fitzwalter (2008), Steininger (2002), Donders (2010), Vowe et al. (2008), Steemers (2010), Ali (2012, 2013) and Potschka (2012, 2013). Some of these works are more concerned with media; others with communications policy; and some treat both.

The widespread reliance on elite interviews as a primary source of data, often in combination with document analysis, follows from idiosyncrasies of the subject area. Media and communications policy-making processes are usually steered through by closely connected elites, including politicians, industry stakeholders, regulators and officials of public and private media and communication organizations. In many instances there are only a small number of key actors involved in these processes. In a recent study on the public service media (PSM) funding reforms in Germany and Finland, coming into effect on 1 January 2013, Herzog and Karppinen found that ‘the [German] reform was only possible because there were relatively few actors involved’ (2014: 425). Similarly, Freedman argues that while media and communication policy should be a process open to multiple stakeholders it primarily remains a field governed by elites, thereby requiring a ‘study of elite power and not of popular resistance’ (2008: 22). These findings stand vis-à-vis the theoretical assumptions of media

  3  

governance, which regards it as best practice to include civil society actors and other non-governmental stakeholders throughout the policy-making process (Hamelink and Nordenstreng 2007). The degree to which non-governmental actors can actually determine media policy outcomes, however, differs from country to country and case to case. Still, if civil society advocacy campaigns play a major role in one or the other policy-making process, it is fair game to perceive their key figures as elites, likewise to politicians, regulators, PSM officials and so on (Hoffmann-Lange 2007).

Elites are not amongst the traditional subjects of ethnographic studies. Nader’s (1974) ‘studying up’ reversed the focus of ethnography studies in researching individuals of higher social status than the researcher. Subsequently, diverse authors have dealt with elite interviewing in various contexts such as, for example, education (e.g., Ball 1994; Phillips 1998) and literature (Radway 1989). Media and communications policy research, by contrast, suffers from a lack of methodological reflection and there is a comparatively small amount of literature dealing with the methods of the field, a shortcoming we seek to address in this article. The recent Trends in Communication Policy Research (Just and Puppis, 2012a) constitutes a notable exception in this regard.

In the following we address the use of elite interviews in media and communications policy research, drawing on a variety of exemplary studies in, principally, four liberal capitalist Western democracies: the United States, Canada, Britain and Germany. We thematize the fit between various analytical frameworks and elite interviews as a primary source of data, interviewee selection, access, the conduct of interviews and data analysis, before the concluding section makes a case for the pivotal need of more methodological reflexivity in media and communications policy research, which, partly, stands vis-à-vis practical issues such as space constraints and the preferences of publishers. Literature review: Analytical frameworks and elite interviews across Western nations While quick to acknowledge normative assumptions within critical analysis, scholars of media and communications policy have been less explicit in the explication of research methods:

[I]t is jarring that methodological approaches to communication policy studies are seldom explicated. Despite its self-conscious and self-critical stance, discussion of methodological questions is virtually non-existent in most overviews of the field. (Just and Puppis 2012b: 24; see also Reinard and Ortiz 2005)

Correcting this paucity is necessary to strengthen the conceptual contributions of media and communication policy studies and to allow it to play a greater role in the policy-making process itself. As Freedman (2006), argues one of the reasons why the influence of (British) academics on media policy-making is diminishing is the privileging of narrowly empirical methods on behalf of policy-makers. Clear and concise methodological rigour and reflection, thus, play an incredibly important role.

When methods are acknowledged, it is often only in passing reference to what Karppinen and Moe (2012) call ‘document analysis’ but to which we could add ‘in-depth’ or

  4  

‘close’ readings, ‘discourse analysis’ or ‘textual analysis’ (Ali 2013: 47; see also Antaki et al. 2002). These tend to reflect a macro (e.g., national media system) or a meso focus (e.g., journalistic norms and institutions) (Potschka 2012: 36–37). There is an understandable predisposition to using documents as the primary source for critical assessments of communication and media policy, with many fine research projects taking as both their points of departure and arrival the hermeneutic interrogation of policy documents. Such predisposition, however, omits the micro level of individual actors and their impact on policy-making, leaving Reinard and Ortiz to suggest a degree of ‘methodological parochialism’ in communication law and policy (2005: 621). Abramson et al. (2008) second this observation, noting that some research at a 2006 Canadian policy summit, ‘did not always accommodate the more microlevel programmatic issues or evidentiary gaps tied to the institutional concerns of actually existing policy-making’ (2008: 305; see also Napoli 1999). Wagman offers similar criticism of Canadian communication policy studies:

The tendency to shy away from ethnographic studies (due, I am sure, to the difficulties of gaining access to key sources) means that while we may be aware of rules and processes for policy-making, we fail to acknowledge what many already know: that lots of policies are made offline. (2010: 625)

As Sarikakis and Ganter put it: ‘[P]olicy actors and contents can be described and categorized, the process remains largely invisible’ (2014: 19). This is not to say that scholars do not rely on the methods mentioned above. Quite the opposite, ‘qualitative document analysis and qualitative interviews with experts are among the most common methods in communication policy research’ (Just and Puppis 2012b: 24). What is absent, however, is robust methodological explanation and reflexivity. ‘In order to be credible in academia and beyond’, Just and Puppis (2012b: 24) note, ‘it is imperative for communication policy scholars to go into methodological debates’. Methodological reflexivity and debate, then, seem to occupy a ‘blindspot’ in critical media and communication policy studies (Smythe 1977).

By way of example, Lunt and Livingstone (2011) only make note of their interviews in the ‘Acknowledgement’ section, while Hilliard and Keith (2005) go to pains to describe interview respondents, but refrain from discussing the recruitment process. This should not be taken as a critique of this scholarship, but rather to demonstrate that when mixed methods are employed, they are seldom explicated. Scholars wishing to pursue a mixed-method approach of document analysis and interviews benefit from the example set by Freedman (2008), who supplemented his critique of policy discourse with elite interviews so as to ‘go beyond the often procedural and technical accounts of media policy to offer a broader picture of the voices, arguments, actors, arenas and controversies that dominate contemporary media policy-making’ (Freedman 2008: vii).2 Potschka (2012) and Ali (2012, 2013) also used an explicit mixed-method approach of elite interviews and critical policy analysis. Acknowledging the importance of methodological consistency when undertaking comparative research, Potschka relied on a mixture of elite interviews and archival records to interrogate communications policy-making in the United Kingdom and Germany. When blending macro, meso (‘intermediate’) and micro levels of research, Potschka found that, ‘contrasting the

  5  

experiences of individual actors who fulfilled similar tasks and had comparable impacts on the respective systems … gives the comparative nature of the research a sound underpinning’ (2012: 38). One possible explanation for privileging macro- and meso-level sources and perspectives is the proclivity of media and communication policy scholars to rely on an analytic framework of critical political economy, which brings with it an assumption of macro-level analysis (Mosco 2009; Golding and Murdock 1997). Political economy has been a seminal framework for a plethora of critical media policy research, providing researchers with a theoretical foundation from which to interrogate embedded power dynamics and structures of inequality in the processes of media policy-making and the discourses of media policy (e.g., Freedman 2008; McChesney 1995; Pickard 2014; Potschka 2012; Taylor 2013; Ali 2013). Nonetheless, it has been argued that political economy’s macro-level focus overlooks micro-level data collection, particularly interviews and ethnography (Havens et al. 2009). In contrast, many have also successfully integrated a political economic critique of media policy with elite interviews, challenging this assumption. Other critical methodologies have also successfully employed ethnographic practices in critical analysis of media policies and industries. ‘Critical media industry studies’ is one such methodology. This approach blends critical political economy with analysis of cultural production for stronger micro-level critical analyses (Havens et al. 2009: 238). Methodologically, this pushes political economy out of its hermeneutic shell of policy and economic analysis, and urges it to consider ethnographic fieldwork to provide a more nuanced understanding of cultural production. Another example is ‘cultural economy’, which, like critical media industry studies seeks to reposition the study of cultural industries on the ‘cultural intermediaries’ rather than on macro-structural conditions (Ali 2012; Negus 2002; Soar 2002). A third commensurate methodology is new institutionalism. Analysts within this tradition focus on ‘the institutional fabric that underlies the making of information and communication policies’ (Galperin 2004; see also Donges 2007). Notwithstanding these alternative approaches, critical political economy has much to offer the media policy critic and student of communication. This is particularly true in its focus on power and capital within cultural production and cultural industries. Mosco (2009) thus argues that political economy is not being replaced by more micro-level frameworks, but rather is being forced to adapt. It must be flexible and open to changes and further development (Garnham 2011: 42). If a conceptual bridge is necessary to make this connection between the macro and the micro or using elite interviews and ethnographic practices within a research study based in critical political economy, one could turn to the concept of praxis. Praxis, or, the union of research and action urges the researcher to be an active participant within the socio-economic-politico processes. For the media policy scholar, this can mean intervening in policy debates, and contributing research and expertise to policy-makers and regulators (Mosco 2008: 58; McChesney 2007). The recently established Media Reform Coalition signifies an important step in this direction. Its development followed from the consistent frustration which has been voiced within the community of communication and media policy scholars that research does not reach the ears of policy-makers (Napoli and Gillis 2006; Napoli 1999; Mueller 1995). A focus on praxis, and on forming relationships

  6  

between researchers and policy-makers through interviews and ethnographic practices could be a step forward in rectifying this interventionist paucity. Praxis allows us to understand how institutional analysis can be conducted and demonstrates how research can be of benefit to individual policy-makers and policy stakeholders. Such a suggestion calls for greater attention on the ‘debates’ within communication policy methodology, particularly the incorporation of interviews and ethnographic research into critical political economic analyses of policy and regulation. Selecting respondents In selecting ethnographic- and interview-based qualitative methods for the basis of a critical analysis of communication policy, perhaps the most challenging, yet most important aspect of research design is the selection of respondents (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 103). This challenge only increases when one seeks to engage in comparative research (Ali 2013; Potschka 2012; Freedman 2008) as greater care needs to be given to selecting comparable respondents to satisfy methodological rigour. Johnson (1990) distinguishes between two frameworks for choosing informants: a theory-driven or a priori framework, in which researchers from the outset make decisions about the statuses of their potential informants, and a more emergent or data-driven framework. In the latter, the researcher first explores and formally analyses networks before selecting informants. In any case ‘it is…important to gain access to people who can best inform the researcher about the problem under examination’ (Löblich and Pfaff-Rüdiger 2012: 208). Dispelling accusations that qualitative research is less rigorous than its quantitative counterparts, care should be taken to select interviewees that best reflect the research design, rather than those who are most convenient or highest ranking. This should be accomplished in a systematic, replicable and, most importantly, explicit fashion. According to Hammersley and Atkinson:

… the aim will often be to target the people who have the knowledge desired and who may be willing to divulge it to the ethnographer. Identifying such people requires that one draw on assumptions about the social distribution of knowledge and about the motives of those in different roles. (1995: 106)

In his study of the history of broadcasting policy in the United Kingdom and Germany, for instance, Potschka first identified the ‘key processes and events in British and German media and communications policy’ (2012) and then identified the ‘key personalities, instrumental in shaping the respective developments at crucial historical junctures’ (2012: 8). Similarly, in interrogating the history of Canadian local television branding practices, Ali selected respondents ‘based on their position within the organization at the time the station was rebranded’ (2012: 261). Additionally, ‘priority was given to station general managers, promotion managers, and national promotion executives – those who would have been most involved in implementing the rebrandings’ (Ali 2012: 261). In a later and much larger comparative project on the concept of localism in contemporary US, UK and Canadian policy, Ali selected respondents ‘based on their position (title) at the regulator through an online

  7  

directory search. Particular attention was paid to those who were involved in licensing, policy/law, and those who were current or former Commissioners (at the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission [CRTC] and FCC)’ (2013: 49). The benefit of such systemization and consideration early in the research design process is that it permits greater flexibility during the course of fieldwork. Ali found a ‘snowball’ method particularly useful to identify subsequent and ‘back-up’ or alternative respondents, often ending an interview with the question: ‘Is there anyone else whom you would recommend that I speak to about issues of localism in media policy?’ (2013: 413). This process has proven successful for studies of cultural production, cultural industries and ICT policy activism (Sender 2004; Brennan 2008; Wendelin and Löblich 2013). As Sender reflects, ‘snowball sampling has the advantage of deploying an already established relationship to make new contacts. Prospective interviewees were more likely to agree to an interview if someone they knew had already talked to me’ (2004: 245). Snowballing may prove particularly effective since mid-level managers and directors may not be listed on directories or websites. As we have stressed there is a paucity of methodological reflexivity within communication policy studies, even from those who rely on elite interviews. One exception to this generalization is Conti (2011), who used a combination of document analysis, elite interviews and ethnography in her study of low-power FM. Her selection process primarily involved ‘purposive sampling’ of representatives from preselected radio stations (2011: 32). This more directed approach was supplemented by ‘the snowball method, using contacts to lead to more subjects, as a priority of this project is gathering a large and diverse sample’ (Conti 2011: 33). This balance of systemization and flexibility also respects the dynamic and at some points unpredictable nature of ethnographic research and elite interviewing since who is actually interviewed in elite-based research is unpredictable and often emerges as part of the fieldwork (Odendahl and Shaw 2002: 307). Not everyone one contacts will agree to an interview, and those whom one had not intended to interview when designing a first list of relevant informants may in fact yield the best results. Access There are different degrees of methodological transparency and reflexivity. If methods, and for the purpose of this article in particular elite interviews, are elaborated on in media and communications policy research most scholars will give notice of the categories of informants (e.g., politicians, regulators) and the number of interviews conducted. Fewer scholars will mention the names of their informants,3 go into detail with regard to their positions, if the interviews were conducted face-to-face, via Skype (video or just voice) or telephone, how long the interviews lasted, how many designated interviewees were contacted and which ethical standards applied. Albeit obtaining access to elites is a key problem with universal applicability (Hertz and Imber 1995) very few will elaborate on the subject matter, giving account how they approached stakeholders and the problems and difficulties they experienced when doing so.

  8  

Ali provides full details with regard to his interview operation, including a list of informants, the cover letter, consent form and a sample interview protocol, acknowledging that access became an unexpected issue in his research.

It was initially thought that issues of access would be mitigated by previous relationships formed with gatekeepers at the FCC and Ofcom, and with potential contacts at the CRTC. While this was true for Canadian and British respondents, potential interlocutors from the FCC and the American policy-making community more broadly, were less than willing to take part in this study. As such, a number of conversations took place with individuals who did not wish to be acknowledged, named, cited or even counted. (2013: 51)4

Overall, in order to obtain access to elites it is vital to make clear the nature and importance of the research and why each individual informant is crucial for it. ‘It helps to have the imprimatur of a major and respected research house …, and it is important to be politely persistent’ (Aberbach and Rockman 2002: 673). Furthermore, it is vital for scholars to convince their informants that they would receive a fair treatment and that high ethical research standards apply. When Potschka interviewed the British political economist Alan Peacock about his role in applying the Thatcher government’s market-driven politics to public service broadcasting, a subject matter seen very critically by many researchers from social science departments, Peacock remarked: ‘Well, when you phoned me there’s a natural, I wouldn’t say suspicion, but a natural feeling of being a little cautious if one’s going to advance the thesis that the whole thing was politics’ (2006). In this one case the fact that the interviewer was a foreign national may have actuated the perception that he is an impartial researcher (see Hunt 1964: 62). Nevertheless, it is vital that ‘sustainable relationships still need to be created and maintained between the policy-making and scholarly communities’ (Ali 2013: 51).

From the 1970s onwards academics penetrated into media organizations and conducted ethnographic/sociological research. One of the first projects of this kind was Burns’ (1977) study of the inside practices of the BBC. Scholars like Burns scrutinized ideologies and professional practices and this had an effect on media organization’s willingness to grant access. When seeking access to the American PSB production system Dornfeld experienced ‘that the PSB system operated as a much more closed world with more restricted working practices than [he] had assumed’ (1998: 19–20). People were skeptical and mainly unwilling to expose their working practices to an observer because of earlier critical research such as, in Dornfeld’s case, Mehta’s (1980) critical account of documentary film-making. When carrying out her major ethnographic study of the BBC Born notes:

I had no official aid whatsoever from the BBC and repeatedly met barriers; any cooperation I did receive was limited and uneven, and access had continually to be renegotiated. (2004: 16–17)

Born explains this by the ‘closure, secrecy and paranoia that suffuses the BBC and its

  9  

operations, a degree of which may be understandable given the unceasing criticism faced by the corporation’ (2004: 17). Another reason may be the dual role of the BBC, a characteristic it shares with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the Consortium of Public-Law Broadcasting Institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany (ARD), Second German Television (ZDF) and others. Funded by a licence-fee the BBC is accountable to the public and regularly faces scrutiny from politicians, researchers and licence-fee contributors. At the same time, however, the BBC operates as a business in the marketplace, maintaining trade secrets and exhibiting a natural reflex not to disclose them. The elites running the BBC have internalized this dual role. They seek to be accountable while, at the same time, they are used to being in control. Born cites Alan Yentob, then the controller of BBCI, with the words: ‘Look, I don’t mind you being here – really – as long as I have copyright in everything I say, OK?’ (2004: 13).

When Potschka, for the purpose of his Ph.D. research, asked for an interview with Mr Clarke (name changed), a prominent executive of a leading London-based UK media company, the e-mail communication with regard to the interview exclusively took place with Clarke’s personal assistant who served as a gatekeeper. The one-hour interview itself took place in Clarke’s office, based on the top floor of the company’s main building with an impressive view. When the Ph.D. was published as a research monograph and Potschka asked Clarke for authorization to use some quotes from the interview. Clarke (again via his personal assistant) replied that, as a matter of principle, he is not willing to agree to the reuse of the material, adding: ‘However, I think the section sent to me could be rewritten to satisfy your needs and my demands. Perhaps we could discuss this further’. Eventually, researcher and informant agreed that Potschka would be allowed to use a few rewritten excerpts from the interview in anonymized form in the book. In an e-mail Clarke explained his position as follows:

Dear Christian, I trust this rewrite will help you. I do not want any attribution nor do I want any quotations shown as I could be asked about them when your book is published. My objective was to help with your thesis and I feel that this rewrite … would be satisfactory. I do not worry about copyright; but equally I do not wish anything that might be taken from your thesis and published in the future to be quotable or attributable to myself.

Regards The interview In most instances when conducting interviews with elites the interviewer proceeds in a semi-structured way. ‘Elites are used to being asked about their opinions and thoughts’ (Kvale and Brinkmann 2014: 171). Following this dictum Potschka (2012: 9) designed and thematized his interviews with broadcasting executives, politicians/government ministers and public intellectuals ‘as a survey of opinion leaders in terms of the role of the state, market and media system’ acknowledging that this is ‘opinion-based and captures notions of ideology’. Beyond

  10  

that, he sought to elicit specialized knowledge from his informants with regard to the policy-making processes they were involved in.

An alternative way to think about semi-structured interviews is as open-ended or ‘non-directive’ meaning that one enters the site with an interview protocol, but one not set in stone (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995; Lewis 1991; Ali 2012). Interview protocols remain vital as they not only keep the researcher on track and satisfy the normal requirements of an Internal Review Board (IRB) but they also allow the researcher to think through the process of when and how to ask delicate questions. Delicate questions, however, may not always need to be asked using a non-directive approach since the answer may emerge organically. As Lewis notes, this dialogic, or conversational approach ‘allows interviewees to move in a direction of their own choosing, and to impose their own definitions and frameworks of interpretation upon the subject under discussion’ (1991: 84). This permits the semblance of a ‘natural’ or ‘organic’ conversation between the respondent and interviewer (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 101). Indeed, ‘one of the main advantages of the qualitative interview is the freedom it allows the respondent to set the agenda, and the scope it allows the interview to probe into potentially interesting areas’ (Lewis 1991: 83; see also Harvey 2011; Mikecz 2012). While still remaining an artificial interview (and not a ‘natural’ conversation) this non-directive or semi-structured orientation allows for unanticipated information and avenues to come to the fore and therefore in interviews with elites may be more useful than its structured or closed counterparts (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 110, 117).

Despite the more conversational approach afforded by non-directive interviewing techniques, the researcher must nevertheless be aware of the power dynamics embedded within the interview itself. Interviews with elites by definition represent a case of ‘studying up’ or ‘ethnography among elite’ since respondents usually possess equal or many times greater cultural, political, social or economic capital than the researcher (Nadar 1974; Radway 1989; Dornfeld 1998; Ali 2013, 2012; Meyen et al. 2011: 110). As such, the researcher needs to adapt her techniques to address potential issues that can arise in this context and engage in a process of self-reflexivity. For Radway, conducting ethnography among elites means being sensitive to falling into the trap of ‘self-indulgent narcissism’ (1989: 10). That is to say, ‘reifying’ one’s own social position. A second concern is ‘non-judgmental relativism’, ‘the risk of compromising [one’s] willingness and ability to critique the practices of that elite’ that comes with forming acquaintances with respondents (Radway 1989: 10). To mitigate these concerns, Ali relied on the examples provided by Dornfeld (1998) who privileged longer interview excerpts to establish context, thus allowing the respondents’ own voices to emerge (Ali 2013: 51). Drawing on Radway (1989) Dornfeld reminds us of the ‘distinction between practitioners’ intensions and institutional practices’ such that ‘the ethnographer can maintain a critical attitude toward institutional structures rather than against the individuals who work within them’ (1998: 24). This permits the critique of institutional practices without the potential cognitive dissonance that can arise if critiquing individual actions and actors.

Location can also influence the power dynamics within an elite interview. Should it take place at the respondents’ office, the researchers’ office, through Skype or telephone? As illustrated by Potschka’s aforementioned experiences, it is the authors’ experience that most interviews will take place at the office of the respondent to satisfy the demands of her

  11  

schedule or to comply with institutional norms and formalities (see also Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 116). In Potschka’s case, where informants were dispersed throughout Britain and Germany, travel was necessary over an area between Edinburgh and Munich. In conducting research for his doctoral dissertation, moreover, Ali (2013) travelled from Philadelphia to Ottawa, London and Washington DC to meet in person with multiple respondents at each locale. This, however, may not be possible given the economics of research or scheduling. One respondent in Ali’s research, for instance, was located in the Middle East, making a physical meeting impractical. In such instances, Skype became the medium of choice, which at least offered a mediated face-to-face conversation (see Deakin and Wakefield 2014). Ali also gathered background research through phone conversations, although this method further distances the researcher from the respondent and makes a non-directive interview technique cumbersome. In such instances, Ali used phone interviews to ask specific questions or to conduct follow-ups. Given the possibility of security breaches, many IRB committees will not approve a research protocol that takes place through e-mail, although e-mail (aside from letters) remains the best choice to contact respondents and to schedule interviews.

One last consideration is interview length. Ethnography is certainly comprised of more individual methods than just interviewing, which somewhat mitigates the issue of interview length. When interviews are the only point of contact between researcher and respondent, however, time becomes crucial. Ideally, non-directive interviewing requires a longer time commitment since the respondent has more control over the interaction than in a directed or closed interview. In his original letters of introduction, therefore, Ali writes:

The interview would take approximately an hour-and-a-half of your time, and questions would revolve around your organization’s roles, responsibilities, priorities, and opinions with respect to local broadcasting and local media. (2013: 409)

Power dynamics again become apparent, when discussing the length of an interview, as some respondents may set specific time limitations. During one research project, a potential respondent wrote to Ali: ‘I will meet with you for about 45 minutes if my schedule allows’ thereby demonstrating that the interviewer often has little control over these decisions. Also with regard to Potschka’s Ph.D. research two informants, a BBC executive and a senior British politician, cut down the interview lengths as set down at short notice due to their tight time schedules. Analysing the data Once the interview is complete, a protocol has been written and the data have been transcribed, it is necessary to analyse the data through whatever analytical framework(s) the researcher deems appropriate. As an inherently multi-method approach, qualitative research generally demands the need to ‘triangulate’ findings, rather than relying solely on the testimony of respondents (Denzin and Lincoln 2005; Hammersley and Atkinson 1995). Triangulation, or ‘the use of multiple methods … reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 5; see also Deacon

  12  

et al. 2007: 33).5 This may include respondent (auto)biographies, press accounts, policy documents, transcripts and testimony, and other primary and secondary sources. Triangulation is vital when conducting interviews, as responses should not be taken at ‘face value, any more than should that of information from other sources’ (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 98). This does not assume that respondents are unreliable but it recognizes the subjectivity of the respondent, whose answers are shaped by personal experience and various social structures (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 98). The analytical framework used is of course at the discretion of the researcher, however, the authors’ of this article tend to rely on an approach guided by critical analysis, particularly critical political economy and in Ali’s case, critical discourse analysis (CDA). CDA is an apt methodological choice as it seeks to understand ‘the role of discourse in the (re)production and challenge of dominance’ (van Dijk 1993: 249). It is based on a ‘hermeneutical tradition of inquiry’; an interpretation of meaning rather than one based on positivism (Howarth 2000: 11, 128). Based on the work of Truen van Dijk (1993) CDA is the examination of structures of power, inequality and dominance within a text (Kraidy 2005; Howarth 2000). As such, it focuses on the discourses of elites, rather than the subordinated (Kraidy 2005; van Dijk 1993). Accordingly, ‘critical discourse analy[sis] want to know what structures, strategies or other properties of talk, text, verbal interaction or communicative events play a role in these modes of reproduction’ (van Dijk 1993: 250). Defining discourse as ‘language-in-use [and] specific patterns of interaction via symbolic means’ means that CDA can be applied equally to written texts and speech acts (Streeter 2013: 489). In other words, it is an appropriate analytical framework to assess both policy documents and elite interviews. van Dijk makes this clear when he writes ‘the theory and practice of critical discourse analysis focus on the structures of text and talk’ (1993: 259, emphasis added). Howarth agrees, noting that CDA can be employed for any number of qualitative methods, including written texts, other ‘media representations’, in-depth interviews and ethnographies (2000: 140; see also Fairclough 1996 on interviews and CDA). Regardless of the medium of expression the point of CDA is to understand how powerful actors ‘mobilize’ discourse to create meaning and support their dominant ideological positions (Lentz 2011; Howarth 2000; van Dijk 1993; Thompson 1984). To be sure, CDA is not the only method for the analysis of elite interview data. Focusing on meaning, Potschka (2012: 26) as well as Herzog and Karppinen (2014) analysed their interviews through a thematic qualitative analysis (see Smith 1995). In any case, analysis depends on the nature of the study, research design issues and the data collected. Researchers are well advised to be pragmatic and flexible concerning this subject matter. Conclusion As we have stressed our field of study requires more explicit methodological reflexivity and elaboration. This, however, to some extent stands vis-à-vis the preferences of publishers, hence the scholars buying their books. There is a widespread reluctance to engage with lengthy methodology notes and it is common that publishers ask emerging scholars to cut down their methodology section when turning Ph.D. theses into research monographs. Over-excessive methodology notes obviously do not sell and many readers may find them tiring.

  13  

We are not as naïve as to ask for overcoming publishers routines and in an article of 7000 words there is often simply not more space than, say 200 words, to discuss methodology. What matters most in many articles is the argument made and the empirical evidence supporting it, with methodological explanations often playing second fiddle. Still, one of the factors increasing the chance of media and communications policy research to play a role in policy-making processes is methodological rigour. Replicability of elite-based research, in many instances, is not possible because elites may not agree to be interviewed twice about the same subject matter. In view of this, without an adequate rationale for the collection and interpretation of data, how do we know that findings are trustworthy? As Moravcsik puts it:

Unless other scholars can examine evidence, parse the analysis, and understand the processes by which evidence and theories were chosen, why should they trust – and thus expend the time and effort to scrutinize, critique, debate, or extend – existing research? (2014: 48)

In this regard, clear and concise outlines, at its best critical reflections, of the methods used, add reliability and validity. Beyond that, a careful examination of one’s own choices of method and methodology not only strengthens a research project, but also allows the researcher to participate in the invaluable discussions, whether in publications or at conferences, concerning this subject matter.

With this article, we hope to join this conversation. Our contribution has been to call for a systematic outline of the methodologies used in media and communications research and a push for greater inclusion of ethnographic sensibilities. Of particular salience has been elite interviewing, and the challenges, opportunities and considerations one experiences in the process. Practices and techniques discussed have included respondent selection, access, the act of interviewing, and analysing the data, where we discussed the role of critical methodologies and analytical frameworks such as critical political economy and CDA.

At the moment, however, the larger question of how the role of qualitative-based and critically minded, media and communications policy research in the policy-making process can be enhanced, remains unanswered. In the list of potential solutions and interventions, increased methodological robustness must be included. This remains an area where neoclassical economics and legal analysis of documents have outpaced qualitative studies. We thus echo the lament of Karppinen and Moe (2012) that too many researchers assume document analysis has reached a self-evidentiary point, thereby creating the assumption that methodological reflection is unnecessary. Instead of document analysis, we, of course, speak of interviewing and ethnographies. Greater attention to our methods, particularly those based on ethnographic practices, like elite interviewing, can help mend the policy-making/policy research gap. Methodological reflexivity, moreover, can take place at any level, from a more detailed and reflexive consideration of methodological choices at the outset of a project, to publishing and conferencing on the topic. The most important aspect is to keep these conversations going, therein allowing our field to define, what Noam (1993: 199–200) called, its ‘real-world role’.

  14  

References Aberbach, J. D. and Rockman, B. A. (2002), ‘Conducting and coding elite interviews’, PS:

Political Science and Politics, 35:4, pp. 673–76. Abramson, B., Shtern, J. and Taylor, G. (2008), ‘“More and better” research? Critical

communication studies and the problem of policy relevance’, Canadian Journal of Communication, 33:2, pp. 303–17.

Ali, C. (2012), ‘Of logos, owners and cultural intermediaries: Defining an elite discourse in

re-branding practices at three private Canadian television stations’, Canadian Journal of Communication, 37:3, pp. 259–79.

____ (2013), ‘Where is here? An analysis of localism in media policy in three western

democracies’, Ph.D. thesis, Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

Antaki, C., Billig, M., Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2002). ‘Discourse analysis mean doing

analysis: A critique of six analytic shortcomings’, Discourse Analysis Online. http://extra.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/open/2002/002/antaki2002002-paper.html. Accessed 22 April 2012.

Ball, S. J. (1994), ‘Political interviews and the politics of interviewing’, in G. Walford (ed.),

Researching the Powerful in Education, London: University College London Press, pp. 96–115.

Barnett, S. and Curry, A. (1994), The Battle for the BBC: A British Broadcasting

Conspirency?, London: Aurum Press. Born, G. (2004), Uncertain Vision: Birt, Dyke and the Reinvention of the BBC, London:

Secker & Warburg. Braman, S. (2004), ‘Where has media policy gone? Defining the field in the twenty-first

century’, Communication Law and Policy, 9:2, pp. 153–82. Brennan, M. (2008), ‘Happy to help? Gaining access to interview media practitioners’,

Australian Journal of Communication, 35:1, pp. 15–26. Burns, T. (1977), The BBC: Public Institution and Private World, London: Macmillan. Conti, C. (2011), ‘Low-power FM broadcasting in the U.S.: Rules & practices of localism’, Ph.D. thesis, New York, NY: New York University.

  15  

Deacon, D., Pickering, M., Golding, P., and Murdock, G. (2007), Researching Communications: A Practical Guide to Methods in Media and Cultural Analysis, 2nd ed., London: Hodder Education.

Deakin, H. and Wakefield, K. (2014), ‘Skype interviewing: Reflections of two PhD

researchers’, Qualitative Research, 14:5, pp. 603–16. Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (2005), ‘Introduction: The discipline and practice of

qualitative research’, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 1–32.

Donders, K. (2010), ‘The benefits of introducing European competition principles into

national public broadcasting policy’, Info, 12:6, pp. 56–68. Donges, P. (2007), ‘The new institutionalism as a theoretical foundation of media

governance’, Communications, 32:3, pp. 325–30. Dornfeld, B. (1998), Producing Public Television, Producing Public Culture, Princeton, NJ:

Princeton University Press. Fairclough, N. (1996), ‘Technologisation of discoures’, in C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M.

Coulthard (eds), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, London: Routledge, pp. 71–83.

Fitzwalter, R. (2008), The Dream that Died: The Rise and Fall of ITV, Leicester: Matador. Freedman, D. (2003), Television Policies of the Labour Party, 1951–2001, London: Frank

Cass. ____ (2006), ‘Do scholars matter? Some reasons for the declining influence of academics on

the media policy-making process’, International Journal of Media and Cultural Politics, 2:1, pp. 92–97.

____ (2008), The Politics of Media Policy, Cambridge: Polity Press. Galperin, H. (2004), ‘Beyond interests, ideas, and technology: An institutional approach to

communication and information policy’, The Information Society, 20:3, pp. 159–68. Ganti, T. (2014), ‘The value of ethnography’, Media Industries, 1:1, pp. 16–20. Garnham, N. (2011), ‘The political economy of communication revisited’, in J. Wasko, G.

Murdock and H. Sousa (eds), The Handbook of Political Economy of Communications, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 41–61.

  16  

Golding, P. and Murdock, G. (eds) (1997), The Political Economy of the Media, 2 vols,

Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Hamelink, C. J. and Nordenstreng, K. (2007), ‘Towards democratic media governance’, in E.

de Bens (ed.), Media between Culture and Commerce, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 225–43. Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1995), Ethnography: Principles and Practices, 3rd ed.,

New York, NY: Routledge. Harvey, W. S. (2011), ‘Strategies for conducting elite interviews’, Qualitative Research, 11:4,

431–41. Havens, T., Lotz, A. and Tinic, S. (2009), ‘Critical media industry studies: A research

approach’, Communication, Culture & Critique, 2:2, pp. 234–53. Hertz, R. and Imber, J. B. (eds) (1995), Studying Elites using Qualitative Methods, Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Herzog, C. and Karppinen, K. (2014), ‘Policy streams and public service media funding

reforms in Germany and Finland’, European Journal of Communication, 29:4, pp. 416–32.

Hilliard, R. and Keith, M. (2005), The Quieted Voice: The Rise and Demise of Localism in American Radio, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Hoffmann-Lange, U. (2007), ‘Methods of elite research’, in R. L. Dalton and H. D.

Klingemann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behaviour, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 910–27.

Howarth, D. (2000), Discourse, Buckingham: Open University Press. Hunt, W. H. (1964), ‘Interviewing political elites in cross-country comparative research’,

American Journal of Sociology, 70:1, pp. 59–68. Johnson, J. C. (1990), Selecting Ethnographic Informants, Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Just, N. and Puppis, M. (eds) (2012a), Trends in Communication Policy Research: New

Theories, Methods and Subjects, Bristol: Intellect. ____ (2012b), ‘Communication policy research: Looking back, moving forward’, in N. Just

and M. Puppis (eds), Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 9–29.

  17  

Kaplan, A. (1964), The Conduct of Inquiry: Methods for Behavioral Science, San Francisco,

CA: Chandler Publishing Company. Karppinen, K. and Moe, H. (2012), ‘What we talk about when we talk about document

analysis’, in N. Just and M. Puppis (eds), Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 157–76.

Kraidy, M. M. (2005), Hybridity: Or the Cultural Logic of Globalization, Philadelphia, PA:

Temple University Press. Kvale, S. and Brinkman, S. (2014), InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research

Interviewing, 3rd ed., Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Lentz, R. (2011), ‘Regulation as linguistic engineering’, in R. Mansell and M. Raboy (eds),

The Handbook of Global Media and Communications Policy, Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 434–48.

Lewis, J. (1991), The Ideological Octopus: Exploration of Television and its Audience, New

York, NY: Routledge. Löblich, M. and Pfaff-Rüdiger, S. (2012), ‘Qualitative network analysis: An approach to

communication policy studies’, in N. Just and M. Puppis (eds), Trends in Communication Policy Research: New Theories, Methods and Subjects, Bristol: Intellect, pp. 195–215.

Lunt, P. and Livingstone, S. (2011), Media Regulation: Governance and the Interests of

Citizens and Consumers, Los Angeles, CA: Sage. McChesney, R. (1995), Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928–1935, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ____ (2007), Communication Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media, New

York, NY: New Press. Mehta, V. (1980), The Photographs of Chachaji: The Making of a Documentary Film, New

York, NY: Oxford University Press. Meyen, M., Löblich, M., Pfaff-Rüdiger, S. and Riesmeyer, C. (2011), Qualitative Forschung

in der Kommunikationswissenschaft: Eine praxisorientierte Einführung / ‘Qualitative research in communication science: A practice-oriented introduction’, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

  18  

Mikecz, R. (2012), ‘Interviewing elites: Addressing methodological issues’, Qualitative Inquiry, 18:6, pp. 482–93.

Moravcsik, A. (2014), ‘Transparency: The revolution in qualitative research’, PS: Political

Science & Politics, 47:1, pp. 48–53. Mosco, V. (2008), ‘Current trends in the political economy of communication’, Global Media

Journal – Canadian Edition, 1:1, pp. 45–63. ____ (2009), The Political Economy of Communication, 2nd ed., Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Mueller, M. (1995), ‘Why communications policy is passing “mass communication” by:

Political economy as the missing link’, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:4, pp. 457–72.

Nader, L. (1974), ‘Up the anthropologist: Perspectives gained from studying up’, in D. Hymes

(ed.), Reinventing Anthropology, New York, NY: Random House, pp. 284–311. Napoli, P. M. (1999), ‘The unique nature of communications regulation: Evidence and

implications for communications policy analysis’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 43:4, pp. 565–81.

Napoli, P. M. and Gillis, N. (2006), ‘Reassessing the potential contribution of

communications research to communications policy: The case of media ownership’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 50:4, pp. 671–91.

Negus, K. (2002), ‘The work of cultural intermediaries and the enduring distance between

production and consumption’, Cultural Studies, 16:4, pp. 501–15. Noam, E. (1993), ‘Reconnecting communications studies with communications policy’,

Journal of Communication, 43:3, pp. 199–206. Odendahl, T. and Shaw, A. M. (2002), ‘Interviewing elites’, in J. F. Gumbrium and J. A.

Holstein (eds), Handbook of Interview Research: Context and Method, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 299–316.

Peacock, Alan (2006), face-to-face interview conducted by Christian Potschka, Edinburgh,

The New Club, 26 April 2006. Phillips, R. (1998), ‘The politics of history: Some methodological and ethical dilemmas in

élite-based research’, British Educational Research Journal, 24:1, pp. 5–19.

  19  

Pickard, V. (2014), America’s Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Potschka, C. (2012), Towards a Market in Broadcasting: Communications Policy in the UK

and Germany, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ____ (2013), ‘Broadcasting and market-driven politics in the UK and Germany: The Peacock

Committee in comparative perspective’, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 19:5, pp. 595–609.

Radway, J. (1989), ‘Ethnography among elites: Comparing discourses of power’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 13:3, pp. 3–11. Reinard, J. C. and Ortiz, S. M. (2005), ‘Communication law and policy: The state of research

and theory’, Journal of Communication, 55:3, pp. 594–631. Richardson, L. and St Pierre, E. A. (2005), ‘Writing: A method of inquiry’, in N. K. Denzin

and Y. S. Lincoln (eds), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 959–78.

Sarikakis, K. (2004), ‘Media and communications policy: A definition’,

http://mediacompolicy.univie.ac.at/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Media-and-communications-policy.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2015.

Sarikakis, K. and Ganter, S. (2014), ‘Priorities in global media policy transfer: Audiovisual

and digital policy mutations in the EU, MERCOSUR and US triangle’, European Journal of Communication, 29:1, pp. 17–33.

Sender, K. (2004), Business, Not Politics: The Making of the Gay Market, New York, NY:

Columbia University Press. Smith, J. A. (1995), ‘Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis’, in J. A. Smith, R.

Harré and L. van Langenhove (eds), Rethinking Methods in Psychology, London: Sage, pp. 9–26.

Smythe, D. (1977), ‘Communications: Blindspot of Western marxism’, Canadian Journal of

Political and Social Theory, 1:3, pp. 1–27. Soar, M. (2002), ‘The first things first manifesto and the politics of culture jamming: Towards

a cultural economy of graphic design and advertising’, Cultural Studies, 16:4, pp. 570–92.

  20  

Steemers, J. (2010), ‘The BBC’s role in the changing production ecology of preschool television in Britain’, Television & New Media, 11:1, pp. 37–61.

Steininger, C. (2002), Medienmärkte, Medienwettbewerb, Medienunternehmen: Die

ökonomischen Institutionen des deutschen dualen Rundfunksystems aus Sicht der Akteure / ‘Media markets, media competition, media corporations: An actor-centered perspective on the economic institutions of the German dual broadcasting system’, München: Reinhard Fischer.

Streeter, T. (2013), ‘Policy, politics, and discourse’, Communication, Culture & Critique, 6:4,

pp. 488–501. Taylor, G. (2013), Shut Off: The Canadian Digital Television Transition, Montreal: McGill-

Queens. Thompson, J. B. (1984), Studies in the Theory of Ideology, Berkeley, CA: University of

California Press. van Dijk, T. A. (1993), ‘Principles of critical discourse analysis’, Discourse & Society, 4:2,

pp. 249–83. Vowe, G., Opitz, S. and Dohle, M. (2008), ‘Medienpolitische Weichenstellungen in

Deutschland – Rückblick und Vorausschau’/ ‘Strategic decisions in the field of media policy in Germany – Past and future’, Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 56:2, pp. 159–86.

Wagman, I. (2010), ‘On the policy reflex in Canadian communication studies’, Canadian

Journal of Communication, 35:4, pp. 619–30. Wendelin, M. and Löblich, M. (2013), ‘Netzpolitik-Aktivismus in Deutschland. Deutungen,

Erwartungen und Konstellationen zivilgesellschaftlicher Akteure in der Internetpolitik’/ ‘Internet policy activism in Germany. Interpretations, expectations and constellations of civil advocacy groups’, Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 61:1, pp. 58–75.

  21  

Contributor details Christian Herzog is a postdoctoral research associate at the Centre for Digital Cultures at Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany. He is on the editorial board of Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture and an academic advisor to the project ‘Facing the Coordination Challenge: Problems, Policies and Politics in Media and Communication Regulation’ at the University of Helsinki. He holds a Ph.D. from Loughborough University and works on media and communication policy, media governance, PSM funding and broadcasting history. Christopher Ali is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media Studies at the University of Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. from the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published in numerous academic journals including Media, Culture & Society, The International Journal of Communication, and Global Media and Communication. His research interests include media and communication policy and regulation, localism, local, public and community media, comparative media systems, and critical political economy. Contact: Christian Herzog, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Centre for Digital Cultures, Scharnhorststr.1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany. E-mail: christian.herzog@inkubator.leuphana.de; c.herzog@email.de Christopher Ali, Department of Media Studies, 229 Wilson Hall, University of Virginia, P. O. Box 400866, Charlottesville, VA, United States, 22903. E-mail: cali@virginia.edu

  22  

Notes

                                                                                                               1 We are, of course, aware that ethnography comprises more than interviews (Hammersley and Atkinson 1995: 103; Ganti 2014: 17). Our goal is not to debate the constituent parts of ethnography, but rather to argue that media and communication policy researchers would be wise to adopt certain elements of ethnography, such as methodological reflexivity, particularly when conducting interviews with elite stakeholders.  2 Even Freedman, however, relegated his methodological discussion to the Preface.  3 In many cases, this is, of course, not possible because informants wish to remain undisclosed.  4 It should be noted that this was a doctoral dissertation with a dedicated method and methodology section.  5 Demurring, Richardson and St Pierre (2005: 934) prefer the metaphor of crystallization, as it recognizes multiple points of engagement, rather than just the three sides of a triangle (see also Denzin and Lincoln 2005: 6).