Am I relying on informal information in my thinking?

Information often comes into an investigation in a number of ways, not only from formal interviews.

Conversations by the food truck or in the smoking areas may include information about the incident, but such informal information should be treated with caution. Information from sources who witnessed something or were even tangentially involved – for example if they heard someone directly involved (a primary source) in the situation talk about it – then this information could be valuable and should be considered as relevant.

However, if there is another link in this chain – that someone heard that someone else had heard that something happened – that is hearsay and should be handled very carefully. Further investigation should be undertaken to seek out the primary sources to explore what they know. Hearsay can add context to your investigation, but shouldn’t be allowed to bias your questioning as it might itself be biased, might not be based in fact, may be influenced by site politics, may be an inaccurate memory, etc. For example, someone commenting that the injured worker ‘always breaks the rules’ could be stereotyping them, and of course this doesn’t mean that they ‘broke the rules’ in this particular instance.

Suggested actions:

For Interviewers

• Seek out corroborating information more formally where possible to support informal information that appears relevant to the investigation.
• Be mindful that informal information can influence your thinking and even direct your questioning.
• Informal information and hearsay can provide context, but it should be carefully evaluated like all other information and confirmed by formal sources where possible.

For Managers

• Be flexible in your resourcing and ensure enough headroom in scheduling to allow colleagues to further examine informal information as it appears pertinent to the investigation.

Find out more about stereotypes here.