© Political Studies Association, 2003.
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
Doing Politics
Interviewing the Political Elite:
Navigating a Potential Minefield
Darren G. Lilleker
Bournemouth University
Conducting interviews can be a fundamentally important part of a research project that analyses
the motivations and activity of those within the political process. However the logistics of inter-
viewing are fraught with a number of serious obstacles and what information one can glean may
not always serve the purpose that was originally intended. This article offers some observations
gathered from conducting interviews with a wide range of political actors which is intended to
help prepare all those considering interviewing for the first time.
During the course of my doctoral research, and as part of my role as research as-
sistant, elite interviewing has been one of the key methodologies employed. In fact
when first asked how I intended to discover what motivated radical members of
the parliamentary Labour party I responded, somewhat glibly, ‘I’ll ask them’. This
appeared obvious. When one reads many works of political analysis it becomes
apparent that many academics have relied upon the elite interview as the staple
method for getting inside the subject. Elites can be loosely defined as those with
close proximity to power or policymaking; the category would include all elected
representatives, executive officers of organisations and senior state employees.
Beyond the confines of politics the definition could clearly be broadened out.
The fact that interviews are an integral part of many research projects is apparent
if one refers to the preface or the endnotes of many authoritative texts. Here a
veritable plethora of household names can be found. However few authors hint of
the difficulties that are faced: when locating individuals one feels are imperative
for a project; when attempting to obtain answers to the questions one has set, and
when dealing with the data gathered from interviews. These, as well as matters of
courtesy and legal necessity, are key factors to consider when beginning a pro-
gramme of interviews. This article aims to offer some pointers to the would-be
interviewer.
Why interview the elite?
Before discussing the problems faced when arranging and conducting interviews,
it is important to consider whether interviewing is a worthwhile exercise. This is
largely dependent on the nature of the research project and on what questions one
POLITICS: 2003 VOL 23(3) , 207–214

seeks to answer. As Tim May points out, ‘interviews yield rich insights into people’s
biographies, experiences, opinions, values, aspirations, attitudes and feelings’ (May,
2001, p. 120), thus ‘Warm, vivid contemporary history has almost always been
written by authors who have conducted interviews’ (Seldon, 1988, p. 9). This
would suggest that interviews are only necessitated when a researcher wishes to
produce a work with textural depth as well as empirical strength.
Interviews do provide insights into events about which we know little: the activ-
ities that take place out of the public or media gaze, behind closed doors. We can
learn more about the inner workings of the political process, the machinations
between influential actors and how a sequence of events was viewed and
responded to within the political machine. Though one has to be aware that some
details may be exaggerations or even falsehoods, a point to which we will return,
suffice it to say that interviews can provide immense amounts of information that
could not be gleaned from official published documents or contemporary media
accounts.
Interviewing does have severe limitations however, which means they cannot be
relied upon as the sole methodology. The data collected must be reinforced by other
forms of empirical data or must be based upon a broad sample of interviews, all
conducted with those who enjoyed equal access to the event or activity under
focus. For example it would be impossible to discover what took place within a
Cabinet meeting simply by asking one Cabinet member. They may offer insights,
but could equally exaggerate or downplay their own role. Similarly if one seeks to
define the nature of an activity, asking parliamentary questions for example, the
number of interviewees must be of a reasonable size and must be representative
of the larger body.
Therefore when considering methodological choices it is important to consider
what methods are most likely to answer the questions that have been set. If one
only seeks simple answers to questions like ‘Why do MPs ask questions in
parliament’, a questionnaire may reach a broader sample and would be more cost-
effective than interviewing. A number of interviews may be useful to define what
questions work, or what options you wish to provide on the questionnaire, but
overall the interview should only be employed if individual insights and rich depth
are required. This does have a place in political science, and is not restricted purely
to historical or journalistic approaches. Interviews can provide the means for
expanding upon data and will add greater depth to a scientific analysis of an event
and phenomenon.
Seeking, locating and contacting
Having decided that interviewing is worthwhile to the research project, and having
identified potential interviewees, it is then necessary to seek, locate and make
contact with those individuals. For those who intend to interview sitting members
of parliament (MPs), their lordships, local councillors or members of the parties’
organisations the problem of locating them is fairly irrelevant. These can all be
located using recognised channels and often can be reached using e-mail. If one
wanted to embark on a study of one, or all of this type of individual then it would
be a simple procedure to create a standard letter, employ some form of mail-merge
208 DARREN G. LILLEKER
© Political Studies Association, 2003.