This data collections consists of transcripts of interviews conducted in West Somerset and West Gloucestershire between October 2013 and January 2014 with a range of people expressing concerns about bovine TB and the culling of badgers. Note that there are three other collections associated with this research project (see Related Resources below for links): 852112: Doing TB Differently: online forum scripts 852114: Doing TB Differently: Q Methods data 852115: Doing TB Differently: stakeholder dialogue workshopOur research will be guided by three research questions: (1) How does the character of the acute conflict (characterised, in this case, by controversial field culls of badgers combined with the deliberately narrow remit of an Independent Expert Panel) reveal key fracture points in the debate? (2) What is the scope for reducing conflicts and overcoming fracture points through social science led forms of interventions? (3) Can a social science-led intervention translate into broader policy change? These questions will be addressed from several angles. We will collect field observations and develop and analyse an archive of film evidence recording interactions between and among pro-and anti- culling groups, cull contractors, companies, farmers and police officers as culling is being undertaken. A sample of people from each of these groups will be approached for in-depth interviews. Data will also be generated from social- and mass-media. An online deliberative forum will be used to understand the types of argumentation deployed on all sides of the debate. This will inform a Q-set (a set of key arguments used in the debate) that will be used to test the views of participants in deliberative forums before and after they participate in two deliberative events. These professionally facilitated deliberative forums will seek to negotiate a workable compromise for future TB policy. Q-methodology will allow us to assess the extent to which social science-led deliberative forums have been able to reduce key fracture points in the conflict. Finally, we will run focus groups with key policy makers assessing the utility of our approach for informing policy and the possibility of our findings shaping TB policy.

Participants were recruited directly using telephone calls and letters, through gatekeeper and snowballing methods, and were met (in all but one case) in person. A semi-structured interview was recorded onto digital voice recorder.