What can Jo share in the interview?
Jo wants to explain a coding decision from a community study.
The question
Jo helped classify comments from a fictional community survey. The interview invitation says applicants should answer independently. The project owner lets Jo discuss a published aggregate and describe the method.
Use the published aggregate and the general method outside the workspace. Keep raw participant notes in the project workspace.
- Public summaryThe team classified comments as access barriers when they described difficulty reaching a service. The public summary records 12 access-barrier comments among 40 coded comments.
“Explain the research decision using evidence the project permits in this interview.”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What can you prepare to discuss?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Prepare the published counts and a method explanation
The strong move. This gives the interviewer evidence and a decision the candidate can explain.
Bring raw notes and use them only if asked
Tempting, but it misses something. Keeping them ready outside the workspace exceeds the current permission.
Prepare only a generic statement about teamwork
Tempting, but it misses something. The candidate can share concrete published evidence and the method.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I would prepare the published category counts and explain how the access-barrier rule works. I would rehearse my explanation without the raw notes.”
Why it works: Both the evidence and the method fall within the project’s external sharing permission.
Step 2: How would you answer a request for a raw quote?
The interviewer asks for a participant’s exact words to see why the team assigned the category.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Offer the published count and explain the rule
The strong move. This addresses the reason for the follow-up using permitted material.
Read one brief quotation with the name removed
Tempting, but it misses something. The permission covers the public aggregate. A shortened or de-identified raw quote is still outside it.
Skip any discussion of the method
Tempting, but it misses something. The project explicitly permits the general method.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I can explain how the team applied the category rule and what we published. The project keeps participant quotations in its workspace.”
Why it works: The interviewer gets a direct explanation without seeing raw participant text.
Step 3: Does the new permission cover this interview?
Before a second interview meeting, the owner approves an anonymized extract for an internal project meeting only.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep the internal extract within the project meeting
The strong move. The permission names that audience.
Read it in the admissions interview because it is anonymized
Tempting, but it misses something. Removing names does not extend the approved audience.
Send it to an AI service to make a version suitable for interviewers
Tempting, but it misses something. That shares the extract outside the approved meeting and adds external assistance to an independent interview.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The approval is for the internal meeting. I would continue with the published evidence and ask the owner if an example can be shared with the interviewers.”
Why it works: The audience in the permission determines where the example can be used.
Step 4: How can you illustrate the method now?
The owner explicitly approves a fabricated example with no participant words for the external interview.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the approved fictional example and label it
The strong move. The example is permitted for this audience and its purpose is clear.
Present the fictional example as a typical participant response
Tempting, but it misses something. That suggests evidence the fabricated example cannot supply.
Replace the approved example with the internal anonymized extract
Tempting, but it misses something. The permission applies to the fictional example. The internal extract still has a limited audience.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Here is an approved fictional example. Someone misses a service appointment because the last bus leaves before their shift ends. That describes an access barrier. Our published study classified 12 of 40 comments in that category.”
Why it works: The illustration explains the method. The aggregate remains the evidence about participants.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Use the published aggregate and the approved fictional example.
- Because
- Each item stays within its permission and serves a different purpose.
- What would change it
- A new permission would need to identify the material and the audience it covers.
Common traps
- Check the approved audience when permission changes.
- Label a fictional illustration separately from real findings.
Check your answer
- I identified shareable evidence.
- I answered the request within permission.
- I checked the new approval’s audience.
- I labelled the fictional example.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026