4 Categories
We identified 4 types of stakeholders: PFAS Scientific Experts, Participants in the PFAS Remediation Industry, End User Water Treatment Facilities, and Community Stakeholders
We actively looked for a cross-over of the listed categories within potential candidates to reflect the PFAS Community accurately. From here we began our hunt for informants, aiming for an even distribution across all 4 categories. In the early stages, the informant identification process relied on our mentors' pre established connections, which supplied most of our PFAS Scientific Experts. Frequently, interviewed informants referred us to their colleges. As the project progressed, our team grew confident in reaching out to new experts and forming recurring connections.
Fig 2. This flow chart describes our Expert Communication Protocol, a 3 Step process to ensure efficient and effective information extraction. Our detailed plan allows our team to focus on our Expert's experience and gain a new perspective to aid in our project's development.
When Identified
Once a source is identified, our Human Practices team compiles a Background Document. This document contains educational and professional backgrounds and any recorded involvement with PFAS. We review talks, research papers, and activism amongst other things. Compiling the Background Document fosters a sense of familiarity with the subject’s work and inspires the question-writing process. As we review, we ask ourselves “What perspectives are they offering? What part of the team would benefit most from speaking to this person? How does their history contribute to any biases?”
When the document is completed, Human Practices presents the information to the rest of the team along with a recommendation. The recommendation is given to the specified division when we believe the source will be valuable for them. For example, a source with a background in computational chemistry will be recommended to our Computational team. If the division agrees with the recommendation, they will be asked to draft questions and topics they wish to discuss with the source. The Human Practices team assists in the writing and digests the drafted questions/topics. From there, we expand and finalize the questions, creating a Question Guide for the day of the discussion.
The Question Guide contains “Must Ask” questions identified as necessary information. However, the Question Guide does not dictate the conversation; it only facilitates it. Our questions serve as bouncing off points to inspire discussion with the informant. Most of our meeting is filled with follow-up questions to the pre-planned questions. When a topic is exhausted, the team utilizes the Question Guide to inspire a new one. The goal of the meeting is not to obtain statements that confirm our biases. We aim to gather new information we would have never considered, so a vital part of our process is coming up with questions on the spot. It should also be noted that the Human Practices division only facilitates the discussions. In all meetings, the entire team is present, and members of other teams are encouraged to ask questions as new topics emerge. These meetings are recorded with the consent of the interviewer and a Human Practices member takes notes during the discussion.
After the meeting is over, Human Practices facilitates a meeting debrief. During the debrief, all members are encouraged to discuss their thoughts after the meeting. A Human Practices team member takes notes throughout the discussion.
Integration
Human Practices digest the newly gathered information over several days. We frequently return to our recordings and notes to ensure every bit of information is squeezed out! Soon after, we begin to suggest improvements to the project and ways to integrate it. This could range from edits to a presentation to even entire project pivots! We raise our concerns and ideas to the rest of the team, ensuring all perspectives are included in the brainstorming process.
After a few weeks, we revisit the recordings and notes of our source with fresh eyes. We hold ourselves accountable and ensure we learned everything we could from the informant. This revisitation step has been vital for our team acting as a second integration step. Reviewing the footage inspires us to create new methods of integration and reminds us of concepts we may have missed.
This process is also nonlinear as we often have second and third meetings with the source. This process is also subject to change as we continue to improve with each meeting!
