A member of the Young Scientists Journal (YSJ) editorial team contacted me few weeks ago asking for some advice on how to interview scientists. While I was preparing my answer to her e-mail, it occurred to me that I should also compile here a few essential tips for a good interviewing practice. This is to say that this blog entry is intended to help a specific group – students from 12 to 20 years old who are involved with the YSJ project all around the world – and might be of very little use to professional journalists and science writers.

I divided the text below into four parts: “preparing your interview” (1), “during the conversation” (2), “writing up” (3) and “follow up” (4). I contacted a few scientists (mainly via Twitter!) in order to listen to their comments and suggestions. Almost all observations received were included in my final draft and I mention whose their authors are. In other words, unless otherwise stated, each section reflects my own opinion about interviewing methods and science reporting.

Before you start reading, a warning. What I write here about interviews extends no further than my own experience. And my experience is what it is – 14 years of journalism in two countries and several mistakes followed (sometimes) by lessons learned. This is not much compared with the knowledge of many experts that I have had the pleasure of interacting with. Some of my advice might be debatable. There are no absolute truths in journalism. 

1) Preparing your interview

 When arranging the meeting with the interviewee, try (if possible) to choose a quiet place. Interruptions can break the interviewee's concentration, and therefore influence the course and the logic of his or her answers. If you are planning to record the conversation (and I strongly recommend you to do so), a noisy place will interfere with the quality of the sound. Transcribing interviews usually requires a great deal of work, but when you cannot understand very well what the interviewee says this task can be even more tiresome!

While you are trying to arrange the interview, you can already start doing your homework. When I asked Kristen Kulinowski, from the Department of Chemistry at Rice University, what we could do to interview better, she answered straight away: “Do some preparation work on the issue before calling”. Seriously preparing an interview beforehand seems like an obvious procedure, but it is sometimes overlooked even by professional journalists (mostly due to time constraints). 

It is essential to read up on existing material related to the scientist you are going to talk to. This includes visiting the interviewee's lab web page and reading on the Internet his previous interviews (if any). For instance, it is not a good idea to ask the scientist how long he has been working on stem cells if there is a detailed and official biography available online. If that information exists and is easily accessible, you are supposed to know it beforehand. Walking into a meeting well prepared is half way through a good interview. It is much easier to feel confident to conduct the conversation when we have read so much about our interviewee that we almost feel that we know him personally. Try to figure out exactly what you want to get from the interviewee. Write down key topics or questions you want to discuss during the interview. Do an exercise of brainstorming on a sheet of paper, a method which helps you to identify the really worthy themes to pursue among the stream of ideas. At the beginning, your scribbled notebook will possibly look like this:

1) Destruction of human embryos

2) How does he feel about the current public understanding of stem cells applications?

3) Where does he think stem cells research might lead us in terms of the treatment of neurological diseases?

4) Funding – US ban versus Europe

5) What novelties are there in his research area?

6) Embryo donation policies

At this point, never mind the order of the questions. Just try to pick topics or questions you consider important from the material you have read. Note them down ignoring (at this stage) whether they might be vague or overlap one another. Only when you finish writing down all ideas will you be able to group and reorder questions or related to similar topics. For instance, two or more questions might inquire the same thing in rephrased ways – so you should better keep the one you think is simpler, and eliminate the others. Also prepare some easy questions to break the ice – remember that the first five or ten minutes work as a sort of warm up stage, a period during which you need to help your interviewee to relax and open up. Closed-ended questions are usually more efficient at this stage.

I see no problem in ending up this process with a list of topics (as exemplified in numbers 1, 4 and 6) rather than a list of questions (numbers 2, 3 and 5). But you need to make sure that you know what questions key words like “funding” or “embryo donation” stand for. In other words, “funding” should be only a tagline to help you conduct the interview. The word “funding” will act as a reminder, popping up in your mind along with the questions you intend to ask (for example: “funding” can act as an aide memoir for the question “In which ways do you think the end of the stem cell funding ban in US will affect the competitiveness of European research?”).

Refining the bundle of questions or topics will be your next step. If you defined a list of topics instead of a series of questions, this task will be much easier for you. Now that you know exactly what you want to ask, try to clean up the questions, reducing them to a few keywords. You will end up with an agenda like this:

1) Novelties in stem cell research

2) Future clinical applications

3) Ethical issues

4) Embryo donation policies

5) Public response

6) Funding

So you would ask me: Why squeeze all the questions you so carefully formulated into a few words? Well, simply because you cannot read out your questions to your interviewee. It would make you lose eye contact with him. It would make things appear artificial, cold. And this is exactly what we do not want in an interview – a fruitful dialogue requires a sense of connectedness between the two conversers. That is why a nod, a smile of encouragement and eye contact are also very important when it comes to interviewing.

It is a good idea to print out your agenda and bring it with you during the interview. As any map, it will hopefully help you to feel confident during your journey. But it cannot be taken as a rigid script. In fact, no interview happens exactly as you planned. Some questions that you were expecting to ask by the end of the conversation will naturally come up at the beginning. Do not feel disappointed about it; that is what happens in every single interview. As a matter of fact, leaving some room for serendipity is also an essential ingredient to an enjoyable conversation.

2) During the conversation

 I mentioned earlier that it would be wise to prepare some easy questions to begin the interview with. Now that we are talking about the interview itself, I would like to underline that easy questions do not necessarily mean small talk.

I often try to be informal with my interviewees, but I tend to avoid banal topics such as the weather or last night’s game. But it always depends on the style of each interviewer. These excellent interviewing techniques written by members of The New York Times staff, for example, suggest you to begin with… weather talk.

In fact, some science correspondents might work very well following the rhythm of each interviewee, whereas others develop different ways to get the scientist to start talking. Each interviewer has his own way to make their interviewees feel comfortable and relaxed. Your own interviewing style will be revealed with practice, believe me.

Ask, ask, ask. Do not fear of looking like an ignorant. If you knew all about stem cell research, for instance, you would probably be the interviewee and not the interviewer. Also bear in mind that some scientists like to feel that they are in charge and will attempt to dictate the nature and the content of the meeting. Try to be flexible – you are there to gather information and, as long as you do, that’s OK.

As you follow through on each item of your agenda, tick it off (once it has been covered). It helps you to get, in a quick glance, a clear picture of how the interview is going. But, again, remember that your agenda is a memento and not a rigid script. You are not meant to be looking at it at all times. Most of your attention should be directed to your interviewee – listen carefully to what he says, maintain eye contact, and pay attention not only to the content of the discussion but also to the speaker’s body language. In short, listen, listen, listen. Do not interrupt unless you realise the interviewee is not answering your question or you feel the need to ask follow up questions.

By the time the interview draws to a close, ask if there is anything else the interviewee would like to add and say thank you. We need to value our interviewee’s time and availability. Ask him if there is anything regarding the publication to be clarified. It is important to create some space to let all doubts or inquiries to be answered. The scientist might want to ask when the article will be published or if it is possible to read the draft in advance. The answer to the latter will vary according to the policies of your publication. In the Portuguese news organization for which I work, the PÚBLICO newspaper, reporters are not authorized to show their sources interviews, features or any journalistic article prior to publication.

Andrew Maynard, Science Advisor to the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, told me via e-mail that some of his richest conversations with journalists have come from this usually last formal question: Is there anything else you think is important, or that you would like to add? ‘What I find at this point is that I start to chat more informally with the interviewer about things that weren't covered in their questions, or thinks that I think might be relevant – including emphasizing and clarifying things that I have said’, says Andrew Maynard. He notes that, as a result, occasionally something is said that hits a chord with the interviewer, and so they ‘spend several more minutes exploring something that wasn't in the original interview plan, but nevertheless finds its way into the final piece’.

3) Writing Up

 To write an interview is to represent someone else’s speech. It is, therefore, a matter of extreme responsibility. In theory, an interview corresponds to exactly what the interviewer said during the whole dialogue. But we all know that reproducing this is impractical: almost all interviews published are a compendium, an edited version of a conversation and, therefore, a mere representation of reality. However, having said that, it is possible to ensure that this representation of reality, if carefully crafted, is factual and honest. It is precisely this accuracy that every interviewer should pursue at any cost while writing up the text.

This problem of representation can be illustrated by a comment that Jonathan Weitzman, Professor and Director of the UMR Epigenetics and Cell Fate in Paris, sent to me: ‘Scientists often feel they get misquoted. They don't realise that an hour conversation might be condensed into a few sentences.’ Weitzman does not state that researchers are often misquoted – he says that they  feel misquoted. The ways in which the sentence is phrased suggests that there is something that gets lost in the process of talking, being listened to, understood and eventually represented. I would love to say the contrary, but it is true. There is, indeed, a price to pay to convey a message to a wider audience.

A journalistic interview is not a thesis or a treatise. It is supposed to convey ideas in a simpler and abbreviated way. We often need to paraphrase ideas. But simplicity can never be an excuse for inaccuracy. Take this very basic example: one might for instance use the word “bug” instead of microorganism in order to save ten characters in a title. “Bug” is not a precise word, but it does the job if you run out of space in the page. Whereas it is acceptable in some publications to say that tuberculosis is caused by a bug, it almost constitutes a “crime” to say that tuberculosis is caused by virus. That is the difference between simplifying and screwing up.

I will take as an example a case described by the scientist JF Derry here. Derry published a paper entitled “Bravo Emma! Music in the life and work of Charles Darwin” early this year in the journal Endeavour. He was then contacted by a journalist called J.V., who was interested in writing about the content of Derry’s study. We can read in Derry’s account how ‘horrified’ the scientist from the University of Edinburgh became when he saw J.V.’s piece of journalism published.

Among other mistakes, the journalist J.V. suggests that Emma's music influenced Darwin's theories. This is something that Derry never mentioned when answering her questions via e-mail. The scientist wrote that ‘music was central to [Darwin’s] home life and a panacea after a hard day's work, or often when not feeling well’, but did not suggest (or present any evidence) that Emma's music specifically ‘influenced at least two key evolution theories formulated by the British naturalist’, as it appears in J.V.’s article.

Considering the example above, it comes as no surprise that among JF Derry’s suggestions we can find these pieces of advice: ‘don't misrepresent their [researchers’] work’, ‘listen carefully’, ‘don't paraphrase, and write clearly’.

4) Follow up

 We do not work for our sources, but it is true that we work with them. So it is a matter of gratitude and politeness to show your interviewees the final results. As Kristen Kulinowski suggests to her interviewers: 'Follow up with copy of article regardless of whether I'm quoted or not.' Please note that Kulinowski’s advice suggests that scientists are also interested in the article itself, they are not only looking forward to reading their name on it.

Andrew Maynard agrees that it is always good to be informed personally when the piece is published – whether or not the scientist is quoted. He adds that, on occasions, there were journalists who sent him the piece and explain why his comments haven't appeared. ‘This can sometimes be a bit of an ego blow, but it does raise my respect for these journalists.  It also helps cement a longer lasting relationship.  Developing a working relationship with scientists you may use as a source multiple times seems extremely important. It provides you with a list of sources that you are confident in, and who trust you’, argues the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Science Advisor.

Trust – this word, used by Andrew Maynard, haven’t appeared here so far. But it is a very important one. We built trust doing our job properly but also giving feedback after the interview. If you have the opportunity, it is good to ask the scientist whether everything was accurate in your article. We always learn from our mistakes. We all should feel grateful when an interviewee politely lets us know that our text was not as precise as it should be. ‘This question of trust is critical, and it is mutually beneficial’, remembers Andrew Maynard, because ‘a scientist is more likely to speak to a journalist that they have had good experiences with, and who does a good job in representing their work’.

Finally, don’t forget: you are not writing with the purpose of flattering scientists. The aim of each piece of journalism is to inform the readers – and this sometimes implies asking uncomfortable questions.  

P.S. Andrew Maynard, JF Derry and Nieves Jimenez helped me a lot with this text making valuable suggestions and comments. I thank them all.