3.4.1, 3.4.2.1 - Interviews, questionnaires and qualitative coding

Questions and mixed methods

A useful method produces evidence that addresses the geographical question rather than merely convenient information.

For the training question “How is the riverside experienced by different users?”, a pedestrian count measures observed activity, while interviews can explore why users feel welcome or excluded. A mapped photograph records visible access features; a resident's account can reveal experiences outside the camera's frame. Combining methods can strengthen an interpretation through triangulation, comparing independent evidence. Agreement does not prove truth if sources share the same bias, and disagreement is useful evidence to investigate, rather than an inconvenience to hide.

A questionnaire can contain closed questions whose categories produce counts and open questions whose answers preserve explanation. “How often did you visit in the last seven days?” gives a defined period; “Do you like this excellent redevelopment?” is leading. Avoid double questions such as “Is the area clean and safe?” because a respondent may disagree about one feature. Use balanced options, appropriate units/periods and a “not applicable” or “prefer not to answer” option where needed. Pilot wording and order with a small suitable group before collecting the intended sample.

The training design uses matched count windows, a short neutral questionnaire and voluntary follow-up interviews across several user groups. These do different jobs: counts describe activity, closed responses show the distribution of reported views, and open responses explain them. A purposive interview group cannot supply a representative percentage of all residents merely because its answers can be counted.

Interviews and whose voices count

Interview design and participant selection affect which experiences become evidence and how much depth can be obtained.

A structured interview asks a fixed sequence, aiding comparison but limiting unexpected topics. A semi-structured interview uses common open prompts and neutral follow-ups, allowing participants to explain a meaning. An unstructured interview is more flexible but harder to compare consistently. “Can you describe your last visit?” invites an account; “You felt unsafe, didn't you?” steers it. Do not fill silence with a suggested answer. Record the agreed form of evidence accurately, with permission for recording and an option to stop.

Purposive sampling seeks participants relevant to the question, such as commuters, nearby residents and people with mobility needs. It can capture contrasting experiences, but researcher choices and access can omit voices. Snowball sampling uses referrals to reach a group that is hard to contact; one network may recruit similar people. These approaches support depth and diversity of accounts, not a statistical claim that every resident has an equal chance of inclusion. A random sample may suit a prevalence question, provided the frame and non-response are addressed.

A lunchtime riverside sample may miss evening workers or people who avoid the site altogether. Interviewing non-users through an appropriate wider frame can test the assumption that an absence means lack of interest. Language, trust, disability access and who is seen as an authority can affect participation and what is said. Record recruitment, refusals and relevant context without identifying people unnecessarily.

For your own centre, select a feasible question and define whose perspectives matter before arranging lawful voluntary access. Use neutral core prompts, a pilot and a justified recruitment approach. The fictional training design is not an assessed investigation or evidence of interviews you have conducted.

Interpreting text and visual sources

A source's purpose, creator, audience and selection influence what it tells us about a place.

A factual text may report an observable event, but its units, period and definitions still need checking. In the original training notice, “48 street trees planted in the riverside district in 2025” is a dated count of planting, not surviving trees, canopy coverage or the whole town. A discursive statement such as “the scheme gives us our river back” makes an argument and uses “us” to construct a community. Ask who is included and what access changed. A fictional poem describing “a polished promenade where my old meeting place stood” conveys an experience of loss; it is evidence of a represented meaning, not a census of everyone's opinion.