Interview witnesses to the adverse event

Establishing the facts around an incident at work will often rely on witnesses giving statements about what has happened. But sometimes witnesses are reluctant to speak out.

Reluctant witnesses

If an employer initiates an investigation, witnesses to the matter being investigated will usually be asked to provide a witness statement.

Witnesses can be reluctant to discuss the matter because they are concerned that giving information may cause them problems at work or somehow implicate them in the matter. Reluctant witnesses should be reassured that an investigation is not there to pass judgement or take disciplinary action but to establish the facts of what happened.

If witnesses have concerns, it's up to the investigator to explore the issues, put interviewees at ease, and resolve any outstanding problems they have about providing information.

Giving information anonymously

In exceptional circumstances, investigators could agree to anonymise a witness statement. For instance, this might be done where a witness has a genuine fear of reprisal.

An investigator may want to corroborate the basis for these fears, for example, reports of intimidation or threatening behaviour - as well as investigate any reason for witnesses to fabricate them.

Once it's agreed that a witness can talk anonymously, the interview should be conducted in the normal way, but afterwards an investigator should consider what might need to be omitted or redacted to prevent identification.

For the most part, however, anonymity should be avoided as it's likely to put the employee under investigation at a disadvantage. It is much harder to challenge evidence when it is given anonymously.

If the matter is serious enough to become subject to legal proceedings, an employer may be required by a court to disclose the names of anonymous witnesses.

The five steps of an investigation interview using the PEACE Method

P reparation and planning

• Plot events on a timeline for information retention
• What is known about interviewee and what needs to be established
• Points to prove, facts in issue
• Identify possible defences
• Practical issues (e.g. where, when, how …)
• Aims and objectives
• Written plan

E ngage and explain

• Engage in a conversation
• First impressions
• Explain purpose of the interview
• Reason, routines, outline, expectations
• Assess needs of interviewee

A ccount … Clarification & Challenge

• Uninterrupted Account
• High use of open questions, summaries
• Expanding and Clarify the Account
• Question Loop … Open, Probe, Summarise as appropriate, Link
• Done chronologically, methodically
• Locks person down into their account

...... Clarification & Challenge
• Challenging the inconsistencies & contradictions
• Use the words of the interviewee, words of others and contradictory information/evidence
• Non accusatorial
• Ask interviewee to explain the differences between their account and the evidence

C losure

• Summarise account for mutual understanding
• All areas sufficiently covered
• Explain future activities
• Facilitate positive attitude of accurate and reliable information
• Review needs of interviewee
• Maintain professional style

E valuation

• Evaluate information obtained
• Aims and objectives reached?
• Re-evaluate evidence in investigation
• Evaluate own performance
• Evaluated by supervisor/advisor
• Needed for personal development

Account refers to "description and reporting of events"
The previous P talked about how to prepare for planning an interview.
Then E refers to how to start the interview, let the interviewee enter the interview
And here A is talking about how to get a complete and real event description

This process has two main parts: one is initiating and the other is supporting.
Initiating is leading the interviewer to start telling a story (i.e. what happened), usually using some open-ended questions Example: Please tell me what happened
supporting is to encourage the supporting interviewer to continue talking. The most important method is "active listening" Including: body posture, expression Try not to interrupt the interviewee's words, let him speak by himself Use some sounds (such as: umm) or prompts (such as: then what) to encourage him to continue speaking or can repeat his words (such as: you bumped into him?) to let him continue to continue - see here, you can find In fact, it is similar to our technique of doing medical history inquiries.

Clarify: It means to clarify what the interviewee is saying. You can cut the content of the interviewee into several parts or topics, and then let the interviewee describe in depth for each topic, or you can ask questions about unclear or ambiguous areas. In addition, if the content of the description is inconsistent with the evidence, or is inconsistent or unreasonable, you can challenge and ask for further explanation (Challenge).

The way you ask questions is important:

1. Often the simpler the better the question, preferably the open-ended question mentioned earlier: Such as: what happened, tell what you saw, and avoid jargon or difficult language, use words that are easily understood by the other party
2. Sometimes a specific-closed question can be used: Such as: what did he say, when did it happen, who did it. The advantage is that it can make up for or clarify questions that the interviewee described in the open-ended answer is unclear or not answered, but the disadvantage is that it may limit the content of the description.
3. Forced-choice: For example: is the car blue or red? Such questions are more restrictive, and respondents may be implied or misled into thinking that the answer or fact is one of them.
4. Multiple Questions (multiple): Ask too many questions at once, and the interviewee may lose focus and not know what to answer.
5. Leading question (leading): eg: He did it, didn't he? You saw him fall, didn't you? This is the most important question to avoid. Because there is a risk of misleading the interviewee's memory or description, and the resulting description may not be used in the future.

Regarding the PEACE part, I found that the teacher used everyone's translation to make the handout, so I added the translation of our group. Because the original text is more concise, I add my own additions in parentheses.
Our group is the third part: [A]
Account, clarification and challenge

Uninterrupted account
(try not to interrupt the interviewee's statement during the interview)

High use of open question, summaries

Expanding and clarifing the account

Question loop…Open, Probe, Summaries as appropriate, Link
(The interviews are carried out in the following sequence: first, open-ended questions are used to allow the interviewee to make a statement freely, and the important, unclear, inconsistent, and doubtful points in the statement are deeply explored, and the interview is summarized in a timely manner. the content of the interviewee’s statement, compare the statement with the evidence and other interviewee’s record links)

Done chronologically, methodically
(When conducting the interview, the interviewee should make a statement in accordance with the development sequence of time and events. The so-called method refers to the methods and techniques mentioned in the previous post to guide and support the object's reporting statement)

Locks person down into their account

Challenging the inconsistencies and contradictions

Use the words of interviewee, words of others and contradictories information/evidence
(Compare interviewee's statement with other interviewee records and evidence links to identify any inconsistencies)

Non accusatorial
(Do not use a questioning tone or attitude during the interview) z

Ask interviewee to explain the differences between their account and the evidences
(Echoing the previous "In the words of the interviewee")