You’re a teacher. You’ve just become aware of a violent incident that’s alleged to have taken place at lunchtime. Again. One student is in the sick bay. Everyone else has scattered. And you’ve been asked to conduct an investigation. Who was involved? Is this a case of serious misconduct? Is it going to result in formal disciplinary action? Who’s going to be looking at this process when you finish? And, of course, you’ve got to get the investigation completed in your one free period. You’ve got marking to complete. You’ve got sport after school and a board meeting tonight. These things never come at the right time, do they?
One of the most important tasks you have to complete today is the interviewing of all the students involved. Personal testimony is the primary way in which you’re going to work out what actually happened. But how do you ensure that the information you’re getting from those interviews is accurate and reliable? If it’s not accurate, you’re making big decisions that have serious consequences for you and your students. Without being specifically trained in the skill of investigative interviewing it’s very difficult to get it right.
In this article I’m going to point out three very common mistakes you need to avoid when you’re interviewing students. I must say, from the outset, that the advice I’m giving here is counter to the methods used by even some professional investigators. It’s up to you which method you want to use, but my recommendations come out of the science that supports the PEACE interviewing framework.
Mistake 1: Question lists
This is a very common mistake. Especially if you’re an inexperienced investigator. Or you haven’t been trained. We like to take into the interview a list of questions because it makes us feel well prepared and helps us to remember everything. This is good and I’m not, for a second, suggesting that we do not consider what questions to ask.
- Who was there?
- Where did it happen?
- When did it happen?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with creating this list of questions. Identifying information gaps is a crucial element in the planning phase.
But your goal in an interview is to encourage a free flow of information from the student being interviewed. And lists of questions actually discourage that.
A list of questions can close your mind to all the different possibilities and explanations. It can trick you into thinking you already understand what’s happened. Because once you’ve written your list, that’s it. You’re done. You stop thinking about alternatives. This is not a good mindset with which to enter into an interview.
Even if this isn’t actually the case, it can give the wrong impression. Working through a list of questions can give the impression that you’re bringing a set of presuppositions into the interview. It can look as though you’re only after information that’s going to confirm your pre-existing bias. I know this might not actually be the case. But it can appear that way.
The student will pick up on this and also close their mind. Not consciously. But subconsciously they will limit their memory recall to the questions on your list. The human brain is lazy. It loves to do the minimum amount of work to conserve energy. So if you work your way through a list of questions, you’re going to limit the amount of information the interviewee’s brain tries to retrieve.
All this can result in you failing to obtain all the information necessary to establish the truth. And it can result in complaints about your investigation process.
The solution is a reframe. Instead of bringing into the interview a long list of questions, simply rewrite those specific questions as topics. Bring into the interview a list of topics rather than questions. Then, guide the student through the topics with prompts and open questions.
Instead of working your way through your list of questions, build off the information provided by the student. Use their recall to inform your next question.
See the difference? One method is led by you, based on your agenda. The other method is student-led and puts them at the centre of the process. It’s helpful to think of the process as more of a “managed conversation” than an “interview” or (even worse) an “interrogation”.
One of the consequences of using this method is that the student will often go “off topic” for a time. They may head down “rabbit holes”. But often if you just let them go and listen, this can lead to them retrieving from their memory important details you wouldn’t otherwise have uncovered. They may remember something a particular person did during the incident. Or words that were spoken that indicate intent. When the student is given control over the retrieval process, they can uncover the motivations behind behaviours. They can provide background contextual information that could be crucial for someone making decisions about disciplinary outcomes later in the process. Allow the student to control the interview.
It’s natural to want to take control of the interview. You’re the adult. You’re the teacher. You want the interview to progress in a certain way. But heading into an interview with your list of questions can be counterproductive. Instead, try a reframe. Create a list of topics but give control to the student. Focus on managing the conversation rather than extracting specific answers to your specific questions.
Mistake 2: Time limits
I get it. Often these interviews take place when you’ve only got a small amount of time before class. Or at the end of the day when everyone’s trying to get home. And this often results in time pressure. You give the student, explicitly or implicitly, a time limit on the interview. Perhaps it’s five minutes before their next class. Or 20 minutes before the end of the school day.
I also understand that you want a result quickly. Sometimes there’s pressure from other staff or parents to get to the bottom of the matter. But I’d encourage you to stop and think about this from the student’s perspective as they try to provide you with an accurate recall of what occurred.
Putting a time limit on the interview encourages the student to only provide minimal information. It actually encourages them to leave information out. It means you’re not getting a full account. You’re not actually getting the whole truth.
Just like reading your list of questions, creating time pressure can give the impression that you are biased. You’ve already got an outcome in mind and you’re just trying to rush through the process to get to your desired outcome. Even if this isn’t true, it can still create the perception. These are the sorts of little errors that can result in your processes being challenged. Or complaints being made about your investigation.
It can also make things worse if the incident has been traumatic for the student. In cases of serious violence, bullying and especially harmful sexual behaviour, it is crucial to allow everyone involved time. Giving time relieves stress and pressure and is consistent with a trauma-informed approach to interviewing.
Tell the student they can take as much time as they want before getting them to provide their account. Let’s take a look at how this might sound. Let’s imagine you’re about to interview Simon. You might say something like this.
“Simon, thanks for coming to see me. As you know, there’s been an incident during lunch break. I understand you might have seen what happened. So, I’m about to ask you to tell me about what you know. Now, I realise you’ve got a class to get to, but don’t worry about that. I’ll take care of that. Just focus on remembering exactly what happened in as much detail as possible. You’ve got as much time as you need. Don’t rush.”
Now, the chances are, a teenager won’t talk for long anyway. The interview will probably finish in time. But the point here is that you don’t want to force it. And you want to give the student the impression that they’re not under any time pressure. You want to put them at ease.
Don’t impose time limits on the interview.
Mistake 3: Interrupting
One of the biggest problems for pretty much every investigative interviewer, including experienced ones like me, is being quiet and letting the interviewee speak. It’s no different for you.
It’s natural to want to interrupt.
It’s what we do in natural conversation. If you don’t believe me, record your next casual conversation at home. Note how many times you talk over the top of one another.
As I’ve also mentioned, it’s also natural for us to come into the interview with our own agenda. We know what we want from the interview and it’s tempting to want to maintain control. To get the information we think we need. So, we want to keep the student speaking about what we think is relevant.
And there’s that time pressure factor. This is a big one. We want to keep the interview short. We’re busy. We’ve got things to do. Places to be. Marking to complete. Lessons to prepare. We just want to get on with it.
But when we understand how memory recall works, we can see that interrupting almost certainly corrupts the memory. It’s a great way to guarantee that the information we get is less than accurate. Once again, this leads to decisions that are not based on accurate data. Outcomes that are not fair on the students involved. Processes that are likely to result in challenges and complaints.
Creating a time limit also gives the impression that you don’t want to listen to the interviewee. When it comes to the accused, this is a serious issue. Because one of the pillars of “natural justice” or “due process” is ensuring the accused is given a voice. They have the right to answer any and all accusations before any decision is made. So, if you’re interviewing the accused and you put a time limit on the interview, that simply does not comply with the legal requirements of a disciplinary process. This can lead to accusations of bias and discrimination.
Time pressures not only give the impression that you’re not listening, they can also mean you are not actually listening. If you’ve given a time limit and you have your own agenda, it’s too easy to become focussed on what you’re going to say next. This is a serious issue in an investigation when details really matter. You have to give your full attention and listen carefully.
As a teacher, you know this. You wouldn’t ask a question of your class then immediately interrupt. You always wait and allow them time to think. But if you think about your disciplinary investigation processes, you will probably find you don’t give the same time. And the stakes are much higher in a misconduct investigation than in the classroom!
In my investigative interviewing workshops I teach the PEACE method. The second E stands for ‘Engage and Explain’. During this phase of the interview process, you explain to the students things like the reason for the interview, the parameters of the interview, and the level of detail required of them. It seems counterintuitive to “waste” time at the start of the conversation going through all this with the students. But if you give the student sufficient information about what is expected of them, you will find they will provide better quality information more efficiently.
One rule I try to apply during interviews is count to 10 before asking another question. I ask a question. When the interviewee stops talking I count to 10 in my head before asking the next question. Almost always the interviewee continues speaking before I get to 10, resulting in additional details that I wouldn’t otherwise have obtained. Count to 10 and don’t interrupt.
Summary
So, there you have it. Three mistakes to avoid:
- Having a list of questions
- Creating time pressure
- Interrupting
Would you like to be trained to the level where your investigations can be trusted by everyone in your community, resulting in fairer outcomes and fewer challenges? Check out our professional development options. This topic has also been addressed in one of my Youtube videos.
