The following Clean Language research interview transcript starts just after I had clarified the purpose of the research with the interviewee:
To identify how the interviewee evaluated a recent coaching session where they were the coachee.
The interview took place in March 2012. I had not met the interviewee before the interview and I had no knowledge of what happened in the coaching session the interviewee is evaluating. The annotation was added in 2023.
I’ve provided the full transcript as a example of Clean Language Interviewing (CLI) in action. The annotation mostly focusses on the process of interviewing with Clean Language, rather than the interviewee’s content.
It is important to note that this is a complex interview. Many interviews aim to find out about a topic of interest (a witness interview wants to know what happened, a biographical interview wants to know a life-story interview, a modelling interviews want to know how something is done, etc.); whereas this interview seeks to discover how a person makes an assessment or evaluation of an event. As the interviewee says at the end of the interview, it is not something people have thought much about before.
The interview is interesting for a number of reasons:
-
This was a pilot interview helping me to prepare for a number of interviews gathering data for an academic research project. I was experimenting with ways to access how the interviewee evaluated and how to stay out of the content of the coaching (to keep the interview content separate from the interviewee’s coaching topic).
-
It illustrates how a Clean Language interview, where the interviewer sets the research agenda, differs from a session where change is the client’s desired outcome.
-
It’s not the finest example of a Clean Language interview. In the annotation I point out several places where I could have been cleaner.
-
It demonstrates the challenge of staying clean while creating contextually clean questions in a more conversational setting than in therapy or coaching.
Notes:
I = Interviewee, J = James.
Since this transcript has been provided to illustrate CLI, the interviewee’s text has been lightly edited for readability (e.g. removing umm’s, err’s, you know’s and repetition; adding punctuation; etc.)
The words introduced by the interviewer are in bold to make it easier to identify the source of the words used and to see the format the Clean Language questions asked.
Underlined text is referred to in the annotation.
Further reading is provided after the transcript.
Definitions (from Cairns-Lee, Lawley, & Tosey, 2021 – see ‘further reading’ below)
Classically clean
A question that only makes use of near-universal constructs together with interviewee content. Such a question will use a variant of classically clean questions [listed in the table below] to direct attention to a particular aspect of the interviewee’s experience for further exploration.
ATTRIBUTES | And what kind of X is that X? And is there anything else about X? |
LOCATION | And where/whereabouts is X? |
REFLEXIVITY | And how do you know? |
METAPHOR | And that’s X like what? |
RELATIONSHIP | And when X, what happens to Y? And is X the same or different as Y? |
SEQUENCE | And then what happens/what happens next? And what happens just before X? |
SOURCE | And where does/could X come from? |
Where ‘X’ and ‘Y’ = interviewee words. |
Classically clean interview questions
Contextually clean
There are two types:
Topically clean: A question which introduces the interview topic while minimising superfluous content and presupposition.
Logically clean: A question (other than classically clean) that remains within the logic of the interviewee’s descriptions and does not introduce interviewer content, presupposition or evaluation.
| J/I | Transcript | Annotation | |
| 1 | J | So how did that session* go? [* The session they had selected to evaluate the coaching they had received.] | The opening question in a CLI is inevitably somewhat leading. The aim is to make it as clean (simple, open and content-empty) as possible. Although the question uses the metaphor of ‘go’, I count this as a contextually clean given the purpose of the interview: the interviewee’s evaluation of a coaching session. |
| 2 | I | It went really well. Typically for me the sessions aren’t something I’d describe in simple terms, so when I say ‘it went well’, what I mean by that is – it was a real journey, that there was a lot of reflection on the learning’s that had been done and I saw into some of the patterns of thinking that had been holding me back really clearly. And I guess – I just felt like I dug deeper into my understanding of the topic we were coaching to and my own reaction to that, so yes, so in that way it was positive for me. | |
| 3 | J | Okay, so it was a journey [I: Yes.] and you saw into your patterns that had been holding you back [I: Mmm.] and you delved deeper [I: Yes.] and there was another one that I missed and overall that was positive for you. | Attempting to acknowledge the four criteria the interviewee had listed. Note: the interviewee used the metaphor “dug deeper” rather than “delved deeper”; and although it might be implicit, the interviewee did not say “overall” it was positive. |
| 4 | I | And reflections on learning. | |
| 5 | J | Ahhh the reflections on learning was the other one, okay. So anything else about how the session went? | Classically clean question aiming to continue to explore the span of interviewee’s model before we ‘dig deeper’. |
| 6 | I | Let me think, how it went? I guess it had a – one of the things that I enjoyed about it was that we got into a good rhythm and a good flow in that I often find when I first get in there, kind of like now, I’m sort of not sure what I’m doing and a little bit disorientated just because of the nature of the experience for me is disorientating but then we sort of found a point of focus and used that to move forward to create some specific goals for the session and then I think by the end of them we felt we’d met those goals. | I noted the interviewee said they were “like now … a little bit disorientated” and I was mindful to give them time to orientate. |
| 7 | J | So, a good rhythm and a good flow, and by the end of the session you felt that you’d met the goals. Anything else about met the goals? | Classically clean question about one of the interviewee’s criteria ‘met the goals’. |
| 8 | I | Yes and I had some clarity around what I was trying to get and what the opportunities were, based on the work, because I do homework. The work is interesting but so kind of based on that homework, then what are the opportunities to take from that. | |
| 9 | J | Clarity and the opportunities. So when you felt that you’d met the goals, at the end of the session [I: Mmm.], how did you know that you’d met the goals? | Classically clean question. |
| 10 | I | One of the processes that we’d work through at the beginning of each session is to really clearly elicit the goals. And I think that, and the way that we do that is to look at what the reflection is and then, because my coaching is primarily executive coaching. [Coach’s name] does a series of questioning where it’s sort of based on what you’re reflecting on. Is there an issue that’s come up, has that issue arisen, is there a problem that you’re grappling with? And actually it just gets down into the detail of, of I guess, just sort of picking – I’m trying to make words make sense for me – trying to find what frame of the lens I’m looking through and what am I not seeing that I’m filtering that situation through and then sort of seeing what the catch is for me, if you like or what the opportunity for growth is in that experience, sort of. There’s not always conflicts, sometimes they’re opportunity based. This particular one was largely opportunity based but it was just starting to understand who do I need to be. For me there was particular opportunity and what I worked out was actually I’m grappling with this opportunity in all sorts of different ways and the issue was ‘How am I thinking about it, how am I framing it and who do I need to be in order to take advantage of this opportunity and think about it?’. And so that became the question that we then worked toward and answer by the end of the session. So therefore we had a Q & A, that would be the process. | |
| 11 | J | Okay and how would you assess the session? | Much oil what the interviewee described is the content of the session, rather than how they evaluated it. This question aims, in a contextually clean way, to bring the focus back to assessment. |
| 12 | I | Do you mean give it a judgement or what I use to create the judgement? | |
| 13 | J | Both, yes I’ll take both. | A contextually clean response. |
| 14 | I | Okay, so the judgement, so the outcome, so the overall assessment I’d give it would be, it was really productive and valuable and I guess the tools that I used to assess that is: Did sort of lights go off and did I actually have points at which I felt that I had seen a lot or seen the particular issue in a different – that I’d got a closer understanding of my own formulations of the world that I’d started to have a look at? Did I in the session create a set of understandings or thoughts or actions that I can then apply? So does it create an applied outcome for me? And based on those criteria, did I show up and was it genuine? And was I able to be present for it and be vulnerable in the space, it’s a pretty vulnerable space a lot of the time. | The interviewee now uses “overall” but I can’t know if they picked it up from my use of that metaphor in line 3! |
| 15 | J | So, did the lights go off? Did you create understandings that you can apply? Did you show up, were you able to be present? And were you able to be vulnerable in that space? [I: Yes.] So when it was really productive, how are you deciding how productive it was? How do you know how productive it was? | The questions aim at the interviewee’s way of scaling ‘really productive’. My first attempt at a question was not as clean (because it introduced “deciding” which may lead or bias the answer) as my second, classically clean, attempt. |
| 16 | I | That’s a great question, isn’t it? ‘How do you know, how do I know?’ So I guess for me a lot of it is – I’ve never been asked that before – so I guess for me it was, in this particular session, I really stepped outside of – it was working around sort of what came out – there was an issue that I’d been grappling pretty poorly with for a long time, identity level perception stuff and I felt like I had really got to the core of that issue and really had a genuine kind of third perspective on that part of myself. Then from that I was able to unpack a bit of what was going on around it and then create some frames that served me better out of it. So I felt it got really to the core of something that’s underlying. So it was a real breakthrough session; it was like ‘okay we’re trying to get to something, trying to get to something, ahhh there it is’. And so the fact that I was actually able to get right into the core – and I guess that speaks to the vulnerability – but I was able to go right deep into that, into that reflection and into that, to get right into identity level and perceive that there’s other opportunities for that perception, that I wasn’t stuck in that. I don’t know if I’m making any sense, tell me if I’m not. | Luckily, it appears the interviewee answers the second, cleaner, version of the question. |
| 17 | J | [Laughs] Perfect sense. And you got right to the core, right to the identity level, and then what happened? | A classically clean question that follows the sequential logic of the interviewee’s description. |
| 18 | I | Then to be able to challenge that – it felt, it resonated, it sort of, I kind of feel things a lot, so it just felt in my, like a whole body response to the information and its really catapulted a change in my actions and outcomes following on and it’s something that I’m referring to and thinking about or reflecting on a lot after the session and I can see opportunities, I’m applying that knowledge and that insight as I go forward. | |
| 19 | J | So there was the resonance during the session [I: Yes.] and then the catapulting of your actions and applying it afterwards. | Technically the interviewee had said “resonated” but it seems “resonance’ was close enough. |
| 20 | I | Definitely yes. It wasn’t just a nice chat; it had outcomes into the broader world. | |
| 21 | J | So that resonance, okay, I’d like to spend some time on that resonance [I: Yes.]. So what kind of resonance is that resonance? | “I’d like to spend some time on that” is an unnecessary introduction of my metaphor and I could have simply asked the classically clean question. |
| 22 | I | For me it’s quite visceral. So I have a kind of physical response and catch it in my body and kind of, a very ‘clunk’. I have a physiological response to the information and to the insight. [J: Mmm.] And there’s kind of a silence in my mind as well, sort of like ‘ahhh’, there’s a stillness about it. For me, when something’s really resonating and I’m really getting to the heart of something, it is almost a stillness of mind. I guess it’s that awareness stuff and that presence and so that’s how I kind of, that’s how it shows up for me, that’s how I know. | |
| 23 | J | So it’s both the stillness and the silence in the mind and the visceral, the catch in the body [I: Yes, very much.] And is there anything about that resonance? | Continuing to attend to “resonance”. |
| 24 | I | Usually its some kind of emotional response, sometimes it’s strong, sometimes its relief, all sorts of things but there is often an emotional response and like calmness and peace that comes with that. So it can be a bit tempestuous to get there but once you get to that sort of resonance of ‘this is really the point’ and really the opportunity in this conversation then there is a sense of calmness and curiosity and excitement are the types of emotions that come up, yes. | |
| 25 | J | And so in that particular session, with that particular resonance, how much of that resonance did you experience? | The interviewee had said “when something’s really resonating” (line 22) which implies there might be a scale of resonance. Hence I asked this contextually clean question (I included “experience” which they had used several times.) |
| 26 | I | Like I said, it was a pretty breakthrough conversation and I just, I actually sat in that space of just feeling it and being still and just being calm for probably a minute or two [I: Okay.] just, ‘Wow, cracked it’. | |
| 27 | J | So you sat in that space for a minute or two, and anything else about how much of that resonance, as well as the minute or two? | Attempting to find out if there are any more criteria to how the interviewee assesses the amount of resonance experienced. |
| 28 | I | Yes, I think the quantifying is interesting because I’m not, I guess for me it’s, I get really there, like when something really resonates, that’s when those things that we’re discussing occur, just sort of as deep and as intimate as it can be and there’s sort of sign posts along the way to that, that when things are resonating. For me resonance isn’t a, ‘you can a have a little bit or a lot, it’s like ‘this has really struck’, is a way of defining it, as opposed to ‘oh yes, that sounds interesting’ or ‘I can see there’s a bit of that, might be a little bit of resonance’, but I guess what I was describing is just to the point where it all aligns and you go ‘click’. | The interviewee provides feedback that my supposition that there might be a scale of resonance does not match her way of thinking. |
| 29 | J | And there are those signposts along the way, and is there a relationship between them and the really resonate? | Given the opportunity again, I wouldn’t ask this question. Not because the interviewee says (in line 30) “this is tricky for me, it’s not the way I think” but because it is moving away from the evaluative purpose of the interview. |
| 30 | I | Oh golly, these are good questions. ‘Is there?’ Yes there probably is in that as we’re sort of moving towards things and, oh I don’t know actually, I guess – sorry this is tricky for me, it’s not the way I think. So for me it’s a – yes I guess when I say that it’s probably what the session moves towards so therefore the things that I experience through coaching I would associate with that but if I hadn’t been through a coaching experience, I don’t know if I would, I’m just trying to think, in the coaching context and maybe these are, but thinking back to that place of just ‘click’, ‘wow something really transformational and interesting is happening’, so therefore for me, I guess for me everything that happens in a coaching conversation, which is my alignment, my focus, my giving over of trust to the person that I’m talking to and sort of being guided by that experience and just not feeling the need to control or guide what’s going on, just the need, just to be actually really present to the process and guided in the process of what’s happening. I’m probably signposting the way so I guess that’s the quietening of my inner mind it’s probably a sign post. Yes I’m struggling with this question. | |
| 31 | J | Okay. So there are the signposts, you can have the little bits of resonance and then when everything is aligned there’s that ‘click’, [I: Yes.] and that’s the breakthrough and then that’s when you sat there for one or two minutes quiet-minded, and knowing that you’ve reached that place of resonance [I: Yeah, yeah.] Is there anything else about all of that? | Despite what the client says in line 28, apparently “you can have little bits of resonance”. Although it is compatible with all the interviewee’s “journey” metaphors, “knowing that you’ve reached that” is an unnecessary addition of my metaphor. |
| 32 | I | I don’t think so, that I can think of. No. | End of vector (a line of questioning, see below) started on line 21. |
| 33 | J | Okay, so what, what enabled or what made possible that productive and valuable for you? | Returning to the interviewee’s evaluation at line 14 with hopefully a clean enough question that invites the interviewee to identify the factors involved in their assessment. |
| 34 | I | I guess, I guess the trust in the process. I think it’s a really personal connection, it’s a professional connection but it’s an incredibly personal level of trust, and I think that comes out of the skill of the person I’m working with and their capacity to make it, to be present and, I know that when I’m in this experience that it’s about me and that I’m working with someone to facilitate my own growth and so that’s very clearly the agenda and that’s so I’m allowed to get into that, and there’s full permission in this space. This is about me becoming the best version of me I can be answering questions, so I guess it’s that permission and space which is rarely found actually, to be fully selfish in that way or self-focused. | |
| 35 | J | Right. Trust the process and the full permission and space. And what needed to happen for that permission and space? | “Right” is not recommended since it may imply the interviewer is making a right/wrong judgement of the answers. A nonverbal acknowledgement is preferable, and ‘okay’ is likely cleaner than ‘right’. |
| 36 | I think the other one is my personal commitment to the process and also to the growth and the ‘moving towards’ the kind of having broader goals that I’m coaching to, as well as things I’m moving ‘away from’ – presenting to coaching with a problem and sort of turning it into opportunities. But I think that very clear focus and my personal commitment to myself that I will go where this takes me and I will trust this process and I’ll give it everything I can and I won’t hide from myself while I’m coaching that process, so that, which is I guess, probably me bringing my vulnerability and just being really – just not trick myself – and probably be as ugly as I need to be or as beautiful as I can be or whatever it is needed or called for and everything in between and around that. So, I guess it’s that lack of judgement, an environment without any judgement really helps. And I guess I’d say the techniques that my coach uses really work with me when I say the way that he asks the questions, the models that we use, those sorts of things really do resonate with me and I’ve done some independent study of them to really understand them and see them as tools, so I trust those tools, yeah. | ||
| 37 | J | So you trust the tools and the process [I: Mmm.] and what’s really important is that personal connection, the capacity of both you and the coach to be present. [I: Yes.] And that the agenda is clear and then there’s that permission, full permission to be self-focused [I: Yes.] which – and then when that’s your commitment to your own growth and your commitment to not hiding, to being vulnerable and also because you have broader goals that you’re working towards and what they are, you’re clear about. [I: Mmm.] And so you’ve got the broader goals and then there’s the clear focus of the agenda and the clearness of the session [I: Yes] and as I said, you don’t hide and you’re vulnerable and also the lack of judgement in that environment where there’s no judgement means those things can happen [I: Yes.] Is there anything else that makes that possible? | The interviewee said it was a “really personal connection” (line 34), not the “really important” that I used. Again, for the forth time, I unnecessarily bring in “both”. |
| 38 | I | I guess it’s sort of its presence again, but it’s just noticing and having space in the session, we’re not hurried, there’s no rush, there’s no – for me personally it works to have the sessions when I don’t then have to go back to work, so I can leave, that’s kind of why I’ve done this at the end of the day, I like to do these things when I don’t have other commitments and things to rush off to, because it’s a work coaching thing so the work’s done for the day so I can have that door shut and now come into this space, I don’t have to then turn around and go back to it. So knowing I’m going to have the time and space to think about. I’ve got the journey home as well to reflect so I make sure I’ve got that space around it and the two hours that we may or may not use but it’s available, there isn’t that sort of feeling of ‘got to get this done’. | |
| 39 | J | Right. And is there anything else that made this a productive and valuable session? | Continuing on same ‘vector’ started at line 33. |
| 40 | So I guess it’s kind of, yes, the playfulness and the willingness to just explore and see the sessions as just a kind of adventure. So whilst they do have goals and whilst they do have agendas and all that kind of thing. For me one of the biggest breakthroughs or the biggest what I call ‘success’, might not have had anything to do with the immediate presenting issue. So I’m not like ‘okay, what’s the issue I want to work on, I want to fix that and if we don’t do that, then the session isn’t useful’, so I guess there’s an innate flexibility which comes from the trust in that process [J: Right] yes and it is that journey, so just because at the beginning this is what we thought it was – I thought it was –then if it turns out that through the conversation actually it’s something else, it was that, then that’s okay too. Which is that lack of control I guess, there’s a lack of I don’t know, what I call ‘my day-to-day mind control’, ego or whatever you call it, I don’t know. | ||
| 41 | J | And so you mentioned about the biggest success, so how do you know the size of the success if you like? | “biggest” suggests a scale. |
| 42 | I | Again, the biggest one is the last one, that’s just probably me, that’s just my world view [J: Okay.] and that the knowledge is accumulative for me. So I guess that’s why I’ve sort of stuck with the process for so long. In my mind I had it that this was going to be my MBA, so there’s a time period that an MBA takes and that’s what I’m committing in time to this process. But it’s – so the size is probably the most present and real which is what I can remember, the clarity, and it’s probably about my experience over time rather than the value of the session. | |
| 43 | J | Right, so the most present and real, rather than any value, the particular value, of any particular session and that it’s cumulative over the time, and that the last one is important. | Although the interviewee has used “particular” several times already, they have not said “particular value” |
| 44 | I | The last one is always, for me the, whatever I did last is always the most important thing I did. That’s just my world view I guess, yes. | |
| 45 | J | Right, and with this particular session you said you had the resonance during the session and then afterwards you were catapulted to action. [I: Yes,] So what effect did that have afterwards? | The question presupposes that what happened in the session had some ‘effect’ after the session. It aims to find out how the interviewee assesses the value of what happened after the session. It’s contextually clean since the client has said they do “homework” (line 8). |
| 46 | I | Yes, well it has been, that particular insight has been really quite informative in that – I don’t really want to delve into content, just trying to think about how to tell you this. It is was basically one of the things that I knew kind of when I went to coaching, it was one of the things that there was a gap between me and the world that I wanted to breach and bridge, and so this was kind of that and this really spoke a lot to that concern. So it’s resonated through me showing up for people in very different ways and valuing and viewing people quite differently, other people. And in terms of work that’s lead to much greater successes, shorter time frames, in things happening, greater engagement of people, more trust, that sort of thing. | |
| 47 | J | Okay so what resonates with you then, is how you view other people and relate to other people which has lead to these greater successes in quicker time to do things and that, if I understand you, is because this session focused on a particular concern that you already knew you had [I: Mmm.]. And you got a particular insight about that [I: Yes.]. And so now, what’s the effect of that now then, would you say? | Interviewee used the metaphor “showing up”, not “relate to”. “then, would you say” are unnecessary additions. |
| 48 | I | One is when I subscribe to the old world view. I’m very much more aware of it [J: Okay.]. I wouldn’t say it has gone — no magic fixes — but certainly a greater level of self-awareness around this particular thing and certainly greater reflection and journalling into the topic and kind of just setting myself little tests and little opportunities to apply what I did and possibly reviewing those. Reviewing interactions through the lenses ‘oh is this what came up for you, are you doing that again, oh okay, that’s interesting, I’m going to go back and try it with this lens on with a bit of experimentation and reflection’, is what it’s probably meaning or what I’m doing with that. | |
| 49 | J | Okay. And so how does that compare to what you’ve got out of other sessions? | Although the interviewee has said they had other coaching sessions, it’s somewhat leading since it presupposes they “compare” sessions. |
| 50 | I | How does what compare? Sorry I’m getting a bit lost. | Probably too abrupt a switch from reflecting on self to making an across-time comparison. |
| 51 | J | Okay, the effect that you’ve had from this session [I: Yeah.] which you’ve described [I: Yeah.] how does that compare to the effect that you’ve had from other coaching sessions? | Aiming to slow down the transition. |
| 52 | I | Yeah, I would say generally one of the reasons that I’ve stuck with coaching is that I usually walk away with something that is, something that I can apply in practice [J: Okay.]. At times it might be a tool, it might be the 4-quadrants model or it might be the basic NLP filters model or it might a specific thing regarding my own insight, but I usually walk away with things I can practise and things I can apply. And I guess the reason that I go back is that I’m finding the value and I’m finding that transformative towards my greater goal, what I went to the initial coaching for, what I wanted to become. So this particular topic was great in that it was probably very, very personal and very much about me and very much about my personal intimacy and deep connections, whereas other things might be a bit more transactional or that sort of thing. So, yes I guess the difference is this one was much, was very deeply personal. [J: Mmm.] They’re all personal to degrees I guess, even just a new piece of knowledge can be quite personal too. | |
| 53 | J | Okay, are there any particular areas that we’ve not explored or that we could explore some more? Is there anything else you want to go into, revisit perhaps, in terms of what you got out of the session? | |
| 54 | I | No. I think, any other thing I might say is probably just starting to get into content which from my understanding that’s not your goal [J: No.] So we’re not having the session again? [J: Laughter] It sounds like it could be really valuable. [J: Laughter] But no, I don’t think so. I think it’s coming back to your original questions about ‘how did I know that it was useful?’, I think that I’ve probably given you as much – I’ve never thought that way before, so that was a really valuable construct for me, I think I gave you what I’ve got on that topic, yes. |
Vectors
A vector consists of a cluster of questions that invite the interviewee’s attention to head in a process direction determined by the logic of the interviewee’s information and the purpose of the interview.
See: Vectoring and Systemic Outcome Orientation for examples of common vectors used in 1:1 coaching and therapy
| Vector ref. | Line refs. | Aim of interview vector |
| A | 1 – 5 | General questions about the topic of the interview. |
| B | 7 – 9 | Attend to one criteria “met goals”. |
| A | 11 – 19 | Continue on vector #A |
| C | 21 – 31 | Attend to signal/evidence (“resonance”) for assessment (“productive”) |
| D | 33 – 43 | Identify factors involved in the assessment. |
| E | 45 – 47 | Attend to effects of the session. |
| F | 49 – 51 | Comparing this session to other sessions. |
| G | 53 | Closing |
Further reading
In the broadest terms, there are two types of published articles about CLI:
- Where CLI is (part of) the gathering-data methodology of a research project or other kinds of interviews (in the broadest sense of that word).
- Where CLI itself is the topic under investigation.
1. There are dozens of examples of CLI being used as a method of gathering data listed at: cleanlanguage.com/publications-using-david-grove-ideas/.
The two papers published from the research involving the above transcript were:
Lawley, J. & Linder-Pelz, S. (2016). Evidence of competency: exploring coach, coachee and expert evaluations of coaching, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. [Download preprint (PDF)]
Linder-Pelz, S. & Lawley, J. (2015). Using Clean Language to explore the subjectivity of coachees’ experience and outcomes. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(2):161-174. [Download preprint (PDF)]
2. The most comprehensive description to date of the principles of CLI and how it has been applied in a wide range of academic, commercial and action research projects is the recently published book:
Cairns-Lee H., Lawley J. & Tosey P. (Editors). (2022). Clean Language Interviewing: Principles and Applications for Researchers and Practitioners. Emerald Publishing. ISBN 9781801173315
Other key articles which examine different aspects of CLI are:
Cairns-Lee, H., Lawley, J. & Tosey P. (2021). Enhancing Researcher Reflexivity About the Influence of Leading Questions in Interviews. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 58(1):164-188. doi/10.1177/00218863211037446
Lawley, J. (2017). Clean Language Interviewing: Making qualitative research interviews verifiable. Chapter 3 in Becoming a Teacher: The dance between tacit and explicit knowledge. V. Švec, J. Nehyba & P. Svojanovský (Eds.) Brno: Masaryk University, pp.115-122. [Download original chapter (PDF)]
Nehyba, J. & Lawley, J. (2020). Clean Language Interviewing as a second- person method in the Science of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Studies, 27(1–2):94–119. [Download preprint (PDF)]
Nehyba, J. & Svojanovský, P. (2017). Clean language as a data collection tool. Chapter 5 in V. Švec, J. Nehyba & P. Svojanovský, (eds) Becoming a teacher: The dance between tacit and explicit knowledge (pp. 130-147). Brno: Masaryk University. [Download original chapter (PDF)]
Tosey, P. (2011). ‘Symbolic Modelling’ as an innovative phenomenological method in HRD research: the work-life balance project, presented at the 12th International Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe, University of Gloucestershire, 25th–27th May 2011. [Download from: openresearch.surrey.ac.uk]
Tosey, P., Lawley, J. & Meese, R. (2014). Eliciting Metaphor through Clean Language: an Innovation in Qualitative Research, British Journal of Management. Vol. 25, 629–646. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12042 [Download preprint from: epubs.surrey.ac.uk/807943/]
Lastly, preparing for the research was the subject of a Developing Group workshop in 2011 :
Clean evaluative interviewing
And a Developing Group workshop reflected on and applied the results of the research in 2014:
Calibration and Evaluation – 3 years on
