Cue Cards as an Interview Guide

Extension is called on to deal with increasingly complex questions. We can deal with the complexity through systems thinking-what Senge calls the "fifth discipline"-the discipline of seeing wholes; seeing relationships, rather than just things; seeing patterns of change rather than just static "snapshots."1 We can assess complex situations by using data-gathering techniques that are systemic, that is, techniques that highlight important relationships. This article introduces one such technique-face-to-face interviews that used "cue cards," a technique that may be adapted to a wide range of settings with Extension faculty and clientele.

We used cue cards when, as a team, we visited in eight states with Extension agents who'd developed programs with ethnically oriented groups. We wanted to understand relationships the faculty had discovered between the characteristics of constituency groups and the qualities of successful Extension programs. Readings had suggested some key ideas for both.

Accordingly, we typed key words boldly, each on a 4" x 6" card, and left room to write notes. We color-coded and clustered the cards in two groups, constituents (local audience, issues, social organization, decision making, and learning style) and program qualities (program, Extension colleagues, other colleagues, other supports).

Sitting on the same side of a table as the respondent, the interviewer "dealt" the cards one at a time. Each card triggered an open-ended question: With what ethnic group did you plan programs? What personal characteristics did you discover were important? What issues were important to them? What social relationships were crucial? How did they tend to make decisions about these issues? How did they learn information needed to make these decisions? And for program qualities: What educational programs did you offer? What colleagues worked with you? What administrative supports did you draw on? What helped you prepare to invent new programs? As Extension agents responded, we wrote key phrases on the appropriate cards. Once relationships became clearer, we rearranged the cards spatially and wrote additional ideas.

This cue card technique enabled us to better understand relationships important to Extension agents:

• The bold key words helped us focus together on each element of a larger question. The space visible between the cards prompted the search for associations among the elements. For instance, a "clan" social organization was related to patterns of decision making, which, in turn, influenced the agent's definition of a primary and an intermediate audience and the methods employed to reach each audience. Those relationships helped us associate the agent's use of volunteer teachers from the group to the group's kinship patterns and values.

• Physically sitting beside the interviewee and displaying the written notes enhanced mutual ownership of the unfolding "story."

• As the discussion evolved, we often returned to earlier cards and added notes. Literally, the discussion "went in circles"-but with ever greater depth.

• We used blank cards to record new ideas. For example, in addition to the program card, one agent suggested we add a new subject-matter card to feature the EFNEP aides' new responsibilities in "housing." This differentiation showed how the "EFNEP model" had been adapted to new curricula for a new audience.

• Interviews involved from one to five respondents at a time. Discussing similar experiences often sparked new connections and relationships.

• Though the cards may have been introduced in a particular sequence, we could have started at most any "node" among the clusters of questions. For example, we could focus first on program and then its adaptation to an ethnic culture.

Our use of cue cards as an interview guide helped us understand complex relationships Extension faculty had discovered. These relationships, in turn, are becoming a part of Extension in Washington State.

We believe Extension faculty can adapt this reflective, holistic, systemic approach to interviewing and learning, to better understand complex relationships discovered by customers- farmers who have tackled a systems approach to management, families who have harmonized economic realities and family goals, businessowners who have completed strategic planning, groups that have defined complementary roles for community development.

We invite readers to correspond about our experiences here and about related assessment techniques.

1. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (New York: Doubleday, 1990).