Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppl20

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20

Eliciting human intelligence: police sourcehandlers’ perceptions and experiences of rapportduring covert human intelligence sources (CHIS)interactions

Jordan Nunan , Ian Stanier , Rebecca Milne , Andrea Shawyer & Dave Walsh

To cite this article: Jordan Nunan , Ian Stanier , Rebecca Milne , Andrea Shawyer & Dave Walsh(2020): Eliciting human intelligence: police source handlers’ perceptions and experiences of rapportduring covert human intelligence sources (CHIS) interactions, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978

© 2020 The Author(s). Published by InformaUK Limited, trading as Taylor & FrancisGroup.

Published online: 06 May 2020.

Submit your article to this journal Article views: 1389

View related articles View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppl20https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tppl20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=tppl20&show=instructionshttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-05-06http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-05-06https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978#tabModulehttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978#tabModule

Eliciting human intelligence: police source handlers’ perceptions andexperiences of rapport during covert human intelligence sources (CHIS)interactions

Jordan Nunana , Ian Stanierb , Rebecca Milnea , Andrea Shawyera andDave Walshc

aInstitute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK; bLiverpool JohnMoores University, Liverpool, UK; cSchool of Law, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

Rapport is an integral part of interviewing, viewed as fundamental to the success ofintelligence elicitation. One collection capability is human intelligence (HUMINT), thediscipline charged with eliciting intelligence through interactions with human sources, suchas covert human intelligence sources (CHIS). To date, research has yet to explore theperceptions and experiences of intelligence operatives responsible for gathering HUMINTwithin England and Wales. The present study consisted of structured interviews with policesource handlers (N ¼ 24). Rapport was perceived as essential, especially for maximising theopportunity for intelligence elicitation. Participants provided a range of rapport strategieswhile highlighting the importance of establishing, and maintaining, rapport. The majority ofparticipants believed rapport could be trained to some degree. Thus, rapport was not viewedexclusively as a natural skill. However, participants commonly perceived some naturalattributes are required to build rapport that can be refined and developed through trainingand experience.

Keywords: covert human intelligence source; covert policing; human intelligence;informants; police perceptions; rapport.

Introduction

In security contexts, the collection of intelli-gence is deemed critical to both proactive andreactive forms of investigation (Innes &Sheptycki, 2004; James, 2013). A variety ofmethods are available to agencies, both overtand covert, in order to collect intelligence(Chappell, 2015). One collection capability is

human intelligence (HUMINT), the disciplinecharged with eliciting intelligence throughinteractions with human sources, such as cov-ert human intelligence sources (CHIS). CHISplay a significant role within HUMINT(James, Phythian, Wadie, & Richards, 2016)and are defined in England and Wales withinSection 26(8) of the Regulation ofInvestigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA). For

Correspondence: Jordan Nunan, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, University of Portsmouth,Portsmouth, UK. E-mail: jordan.nunan@port.ac.ukThis article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic contentof the article.� 2020 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work isproperly cited.

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 2020Vol. 0, No. 0, 1–27, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2020-09-04http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6187-003Xhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-5295http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4542-8495http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7311-4541http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4950-6830http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1734978http://www.tandfonline.com

the purposes of RIPA, a person should beconsidered to be a CHIS when:

a. He establishes or maintains a personalor other relationship with a person forthe covert purpose of facilitating thedoing of anything falling within para-graph b or c;

b. He covertly uses such a relationship toobtain information or to provide accessto any information to another person; or

c. He covertly discloses informationobtained by the use of such a relation-ship, or as a consequence of the exist-ence of such a relationship.

Within England and Wales, law enforce-ment CHIS are managed within dedicatedsource units and interact with police officersknown as source handlers. While current train-ing focuses primarily on tradecraft includingcounter-surveillance measures, to maximiseintelligence elicitation from a CHIS, the presentresearch holds that there are available tools andtechniques that may assist source handlers andCHIS intelligence interactions through an appre-ciation and application of psychological science.

Interviewing for intelligence

For the purposes of this article, the term inter-viewing is used in its broadest sense to includean intelligence interaction between a policesource handler (the interviewer) and a CHISwho may have information of interest (theinterviewee). The elicitation of intelligence(i.e. an intelligence interview) can be brokendown into three key sections (Stanier &Nunan, 2018). First is the use of rapport to tryand secure the interviewee’s engagement, toassist with recruiting the interviewee as aCHIS and to maintain the longevity of anelicitation relationship. Second, with engage-ment obtained, the interviewer’s role is to elicitdetailed and reliable information throughappropriate interviewing techniques. The thirdand final stage is to assess the integrity of theinformation obtained, which is undertaken

through a process of assurance, corroborationand validation, all which make up part of whatis known as the provenance (Stanier, 2013).

The majority of intelligence interviewsshould strive to elicit the most detailed and reli-able accounts from an interviewee, which canprovide an insight into the workings of individ-uals and groups of individuals regarding pastand future events (Chappell, 2015). Detailedand reliable information is essential because ithelps inform subsequent investigative decision-making (James, 2013). It is crucial though thatintelligence should not be obtained at anycost (Alison & Alison, 2017; Intelligence &Security Committee of Parliament, 2018).Interviewing must be ethically conducted inorder to obtain intelligence that is legally admis-sible and factually reliable (Alison & Alison,2017). As research has found, the history ofpolice interviewing in England and Wales ischronicled with the many consequences ofunethical and ineffective interviewing practices(e.g. Poyser, Nurse, & Milne, 2018). Hence, areliance on the existing evidence-base concern-ing the psychology of interviewing shouldcounter policing practices based on anecdotalexperiences. The focus of this article concernsthe first key section of an intelligence interview,namely rapport, as rapport is also understood tobe a working alliance (Billingsley, 2003;Kleinman, 2006; Tickle-Degnen, 2002;Vanderhallen, Vervaeke, & Holmberg, 2011).

Rapport: cultivating HUMINT

Operational circumstances vary, and manyopportunities to gather HUMINT occur withina collapsing time frame, for example:

a. Conducting an exploratory prisondebrief to elicit information from aprisoner within the 45-min Englandand Wales prison legal visit period;

b. During a port stop, whereby a passen-ger arrives into England and Wales,and either passes through passport con-trol or collects baggage transfers toanother journey;

2 J. Nunan et al.

c. A cold call pitch in person or via tele-phone to a person of interest to assesstheir willingness to meet source han-dlers at a later date; and

d. Within the police custody block, whereprisoners are detained and regulated bythe Police and Criminal EvidenceAct 1984.

Hence, the cultivation of potential newsources of intelligence relies heavily upon theapplication of effective rapid rapport-buildingtechniques, such as identifying the hooks (away to gain attention and build rapport, e.g.personal interests, lifestyle characteristics ormotivations) of an individual to influencecooperation (see Cooper, 2011). Within thecontext of HUMINT, rapport can be defined as‘developing and maintaining a working rela-tionship with a human source, by managingtheir motivations and welfare, whilst ensuringthey understand the purpose of the relationshipin order to secure reliable intelligence’ (Stanier& Nunan, 2018, p. 232). Alongside this defin-ition, the concept of operational accord(Kleinman, 2006) acknowledges that an inter-viewer–interviewee relationship needs mutualaffinity and conformity, thus requiring theinterviewer to appreciate the interviewee’s con-cerns and intentions and the desired outcomesof the interaction (Evans, Meissner, Brandon,Russano, & Kleinman, 2010). Tickle-Degnenand Rosenthal (1990) stress the importance ofbuilding and then maintaining rapport, high-lighting three interrelating elements: mutualattentiveness, positivity and coordination.Within early interactions (i.e. building rapport),emphasis is placed on mutual attentiveness andpositivity, with mutual attentiveness and coord-ination considered more important in subse-quent interactions (i.e. maintaining rapport).Thus, once rapport has been established, it isimportant to maintain that relationship overtime in order to cultivate HUMINT, especiallyin relation to CHIS.

Overly officious introductions have beenfound to generate negative perceptions frominterviewees, especially when this incorporates

a lack of rapport and a warning to the inter-viewee about lying (MacDonald, Keeping,Snook, & Luther, 2016), whereas positive inter-viewee perceptions have found to be formedwhen rapport is applied successfully within thefirst few minutes of an interaction (Zunin &Zunin, 1972). Furthermore, throughout theinteraction, an overly formalised deliveryaligned with functional pre-determined ques-tions has been shown to impede rapport (Milne& Bull, 1999). Thus, the use of nonverbal tech-niques (e.g. mirroring behaviour and displayingunderstanding via empathy, especially wheneliciting highly personal information) and verbaltechniques (e.g. establishing a common ground)has been reported by interviewers as effectiverapport-building techniques (Abbe & Brandon,2013; Vallano, Evans, Schreiber Compo, &Kieckhaefer, 2015). Nonetheless, while estab-lishing rapport may be sufficient to influencethe overall quality of the interaction, it is alsoargued that maintaining rapport throughout theinteraction is crucial (Abbe & Brandon, 2013;Leach, 2005; Walsh & Bull, 2012). Thus,effective techniques that build and then main-tain rapport help exercise ‘social influence, andeducing information from a source’ (Abbe &Brandon, 2013, p. 237).

Rapport-based interviewing

While the short operational window offeredby some of the previously noted scenariosmeans that the interviewer is required todeploy rapid rapport-building techniques,other circumstances, such as a remanded/sen-tenced prisoner or an existing CHIS relation-ship, allow for a more patient, measured andlong-term approach. Rapport is viewed bypractitioners both as an important part of theinterview process and as being fundamental tothe success of information and intelligenceelicitation (Russano, Narchet, Kleinman, &Meissner, 2014; Semel, 2012). In fact, rapportis considered important across numerous inter-viewing contexts. For example, rapport formsa key role in England and Wales’ PEACEmodel of investigative interviewing (an

Eliciting Human Intelligence 3

acronym for the five phases of the interviewprocess; Planning and preparation; Engageand explain; Account; Closure; andEvaluation). PEACE is underpinned by thePolice and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, andhelped to shift the focus of interviewing inEngland and Wales from accusatory and con-fession-driven methods to that of informationgathering (Clarke & Milne, 2001, 2016;Moston & Engelberg, 2011).

Rapport is often likened to friendship(Clark, 2014), a common theme reportedacross numerous interviewing professionals.For example, Russano et al. (2014) inter-viewed experienced military and intelligenceinterrogators, revealing that they believed non-coercive approaches to be superior to coerciveapproaches. Additionally, rapport has beenshown to assist with securing disclosure fromhigh-value detainees, which are deemed vitalsources of information to identify emergingthreats and disrupt terrorist planning(Goodman-Delahunty, Martschuk, & Dhami,2014). Goodman-Delahunty et al. (2014)found that when rapport (i.e. noncoercive strat-egies) was employed in these particular con-texts, information was more likely to bedisclosed and disclosed in more detail, andwas done so earlier within the interview.

Redlich, Kelly, and Miller (2014) exam-ined U.S. military and federal interrogators’perceived effectiveness and frequency ofusing various interrogation techniques.Rapport- and relationship-building techniqueswere perceived as the most effective strat-egies, regardless of the intended outcome andcontext of the interrogation, and, more import-antly, rapport- and relationship-building tech-niques were used most often, especially whencompared to confrontational techniques(Redlich et al., 2014). Moreover, Goodman-Delahunty and Howes (2016) interviewedintelligence and investigative interviewersfrom Asian-Pacific jurisdictions, regardingtheir rapport-building techniques utilised withhigh-value interviewees. These interviewswere analysed in line with the principles of

persuasion outlined by Cialdini (1993), withliking and reciprocity discussed as the mostfrequently reported rapport-building strategies(Goodman-Delahunty & Howes, 2016).

In addition to influencing disclosure,research has explored the use of rapport andits influence on memory recall. Rapport build-ing has been shown to enhance the accuracy ofinterviewee recall and ‘diagnosticity of evi-dence obtained from suspects’, by reducingthe amount of inaccurate and misinformationreported (Vallano et al., 2015, p. 369) – forexample, by personalising the interview andtransferring the control of the recall process tothe interviewee, which is likely to reduce theinterviewee’s anxiety, creating an environmentthat can maximise recall (Memon, Wark,Holley, Bull, & Koehnken, 1997). The posi-tive motivational stance of such rapport-basedinterviews may encourage the interviewee totry harder and attempt multiple memory recalls(Memon et al., 1997), which, together with theuse of open-ended questions, should maximisethe elicitation opportunity (Vallano &Schreiber Compo, 2011).

Although rapport is considered importantto interviewing and gathering information, lim-ited research has investigated real operationalfield data to carefully and systematically definethe behaviours that underpin rapport.Therefore, while professionals believe rapportworks and self-report that they use it, this isinsufficient evidence that rapport actuallyworks. However, recent research has revealedthat rapport exists within contemporary policeinterviews and that it is important in order toobtain information (Bull, 2014). Nevertheless,Walsh and Bull’s (2012) investigation of real-world police interviews with fraud suspectsidentified that opportunities to establish rapportwere often missed, and even when rapport wasestablished, it was infrequently maintained.Interestingly, a satisfactory outcome was fivetimes more likely when interviewers managedto establish and maintain rapport throughout(Walsh & Bull, 2012).

4 J. Nunan et al.

A key development within the rapport lit-erature was the creation of a rapport codingframework that could be applied within anoperational setting, known as ORBIT(Observing Rapport-Based InterpersonalTechniques; Alison, Alison, Noone, Elntib, &Christiansen, 2013). ORBIT was developedfrom the counselling literature and is foundedon well-researched methods of observinginterpersonal skills (Tickle-Degnen &Rosenthal, 1990), particularly motivationalinterviewing (Miller, Moyers, Ernst, &Amrhein, 2008; Miller & Rollnick, 1992) andthe interpersonal behaviour circle (Birtchnell,2014; Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey,1951; Leary, 1957). ORBIT’s frameworkmeasures rapport through empathy, empower-ment, respectfulness and open-mindedness(e.g. motivational interviewing; Alison, Giles,& McGuire, 2015; Rollnick & Miller, 1995)and interpersonal behaviours coded as eitheradaptive (beneficial to communication) ormaladaptive (impedes communication; Alisonet al., 2015; Birtchnell, 2014) in relation tointelligence yield (Alison & Alison, 2017).

Alison et al. (2013) utilised the ORBITframework to analyse audio and video footageof terrorist interrogations from 181 convictedsuspects. Building rapport was identified asimportant in securing information disclosuresfrom terrorists as it was positively associatedwith adaptive behaviours of communication,which consequently increased intelligenceyield (Alison et al., 2013). Similar results werefound by Alison et al. (2014), whereby anadaptive rapport-based interrogation style (e.g.the use of respect, dignity and integrity) wasfound to be an effective approach for reducingsuspects’ use of counter-interrogation tactics(e.g. no comment interviews, retraction ofstatements or claiming lack of memory).

Additionally, Christiansen, Alison, andAlison (2018) examined the interpersonalbehaviours of police interviewers across inter-views with convicted terrorist suspects in anaturalistically occurring environment. UsingORBIT, their results demonstrated that

maladaptive behaviours were associated withthe suspect shutting down, while adaptive pas-sive behaviours (e.g. humble and seeks guid-ance) were effective in the first interview. Thistactic did not produce the same effects, how-ever, in the final interview, where cooperativeadaptive interviewing behaviours (e.g. respectand trust) were associated with improvedadaptive detainee behaviours throughout, high-lighting the importance of being flexible inadopting different interviewing styles over thecourse of numerous interactions. Interestingly,such findings seem applicable to the CHISrelationship, whereby numerous interactionsoccur over a period of time, ultimately aimingto collect intelligence.

Despite the importance of rapport (as high-lighted in the literature), no research hasaddressed the topic of rapport between sourcehandlers and CHIS. As a consequence of thisresearch gap, the present study aimed todevelop our understanding of rapport with aneglected sample of police officers (i.e. sourcehandlers). Hence this researched exploredsource handlers’ (a) perceptions, experiencesand definitions of rapport in contrast to previ-ous research, and (b) perceptions regardingwhether rapport can be trained and, if so, whatmethods are suggested to enhance rapportpractices. The present study forms part of awider ongoing programme of research, by con-ducting structured interviews with policesource handlers concerning their perceptionsand experiences in relation to gathering intelli-gence from human sources.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 24 police source han-dlers (96% male; 4% female) from severalcounter-terrorism dedicated source units acrossEngland and Wales. The mean age of partici-pants was 44 years (range¼ 33�59 years),with a mean time spent as a source handlerbeing 6 years (range¼ 1�15 years).

Eliciting Human Intelligence 5

Materials

The current research tailored Goodman-Delahunty and Howes’ (2016) rapport inter-view questions for the context of police sourcehandler interactions with CHIS. Responsesfrom eight questions that were within a longerstructured interview protocol (N¼ 32) are dis-cussed within this article, all of which concernthe topic of rapport.

Procedure

Individual gatekeepers were established fromeach counter-terrorism dedicated source unitsby the second author, which provided accessto a unique sample of police officers. A pur-posive sampling method was then employed,as the specific criteria required for participantsto be eligible for this research were being apolice officer (a) who worked in a counter-ter-rorism dedicated source units and (b) whointeracted with CHIS. Having obtained ethicalauthorisation from the first author’s universityand CREST (Centre for Research andEvidence on Security Threats), structuredinterviews were conducted by the first authorwith participants who met the inclusion crite-ria. Spoken interviews (n¼ 15) lasted between19 and 55min (M¼ 37min), which wereaudio recorded for later transcription and dataanalysis. The protection of the participants’identities was of utmost importance due to thesensitive nature of their work. Hence, alterna-tive methods were put in place; those inter-viewed face-to-face (n¼ 11) had the option toeither sign the consent form or provide consentverbally on the audio recording device torefrain from providing a written name/signa-ture. Due to the operational commitments andavailability of the participants, some partici-pants provided their responses via an audiorecorded internet/phone interview (n¼ 4) orby written responses via the designated gate-keeper’s email (n¼ 9). In addition, a conditionof participation included that participantswould read through the transcript of their inter-view and provide approval for their transcriptto be used for the current study.

Data analysis

A systematic, thematic analysis was under-taken, which followed the principles outlinedby Braun and Clarke (2006, 2012). Thematicanalysis is a flexible and accessible qualitativemethod that allows the author to view anddevelop an understanding of shared percep-tions and experiences (Braun & Clarke, 2012).In line with the thematic analysis principles,this research progressed in three stages. First,the overall research question was developed:how do source handlers perceive and experi-ence rapport with CHIS? Second, in order toaddress the overarching research question, theinterviews asked the following questions tosource handlers:

1. How would you define rapport withinthe context of an intelligence gatheringinterview/debrief?

2. What is the importance of rapport in anintelligence gathering interview/debrief?

3. What strategies for establishing rap-port do you find to be most effective?

4. What strategies for establishing rap-port do you find to be least effective?

5. What strategies for maintaining rap-port over the relationship with a sourcedo you find to be most effective?

6. What strategies for maintaining rap-port over the relationship with a sourcedo you find to be least effective?

7. How do you know when rapport hasbeen achieved (or not) with a source(i.e. what evidence or indicators doyou look for)?

8. Do you think that rapport canbe trained?a. If yes, what aspects?

Third, the data analysis stage was partlyinformed by the authors’ previous knowledgeof the rapport literature, as well as the discus-sion points raised by participants whilst codingthe data. For example, prior to data collection,the first author was aware of the importance ofrapport to interviewing (e.g. Russano et al.,

6 J. Nunan et al.

2014; Semel, 2012), the benefits of establish-ing and maintaining rapport throughout aninteraction (see Walsh & Bull, 2012), and pre-vious perceptions of rapport from other profes-sionals (e.g. Goodman-Delahunty & Howes,2016; Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014;Redlich et al., 2014; Russano et al., 2014).

As a consequence, this research performeda combination of both inductive and deductiveapproaches to data coding and analysis:inductive, by means of producing codes andthemes that were driven by the data, striving togive a voice to the data by ‘carving outunacknowledged pieces of narrative evidencethat we select, edit, and deploy to border ourarguments’ (Fine, 2002, p. 218); however, alsodeductive, as it is impossible for the author tobe purely inductive as prior knowledge is noteasily ignored (Braun & Clarke, 2012).Furthermore, prior knowledge of the subjectmatter under investigation can help theresearcher to be sensitive to more subtle fea-tures when coding the data (Tuckett, 2005).

This research adopted the epistemologicalstance of Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2012)guidance to undertaking thematic analysis byfollowing their six phases. Phase 1 concernedthe familiarisation of the data. This phasebegan during the transcription of the audiorecorded interviews. Verbatim transcriptionwas undertaken to reflect the participants’interviews (Braun & Clarke, 2006) – a keyprocess of qualitative methodology (Bird,2005), which allowed the first author to exposethemselves to the data collected. The first andsecond authors thoroughly familiarised them-selves with the transcriptions by way of read-ing and rereading the data and by makingnotes of key phrases or discussions raised.Such notetaking is considered helpful to theprocess of analysis and the generation of laterthemes (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

Phase 2 started the systematic analysis ofthe data by coding standout phrases and discus-sions. These initial codes were either moreinductive in nature, as they mirrored the lan-guage and concepts of the participants, or

considered more deductive, as they invoked theauthors’ prior knowledge. These initial codesacted as shorthand pithy summaries of the par-ticipants’ discussions. As initial codes are cre-ated, the first author decided whether theycould be applied to the next relevant text, orwhether a new code was needed (Braun &Clarke, 2012). The initial codes were tabulatedwithin a document and reviewed to avoid repe-tition. This process involved merging initialcodes that were similar – for example,‘listening skills’ and ‘effective listening’ weremerged to create ‘active listening’. This processwas repeated until the data were entirely coded.

Phase 3 concerned the searching of themes,by merging related first-order codes to createfewer second-order codes, and finally creatingthemes (Hayes, 2000). A theme ‘capturessomething important about the data in relationto the research question, and represents somelevel of patterned response or meaning withinthe data set’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 82).The creation of themes is an active process,which implies themes are generated rather thandiscovered (Taylor & Ussher, 2001). Thisphase was undertaken with a mixed approach(both inductive and deductive), as the creationof themes derived from data (i.e. inductive) aswell as informed by the author’s knowledgeconcerning rapport (i.e. deductive).

Phase 4 reviewed the potential themes, asthe themes were checked against the dataextracts and then in relation to the entire dataset (Braun & Clarke, 2012). The codedextracts from the transcripts were labelled withthe initial codes and placed under each theme.This allowed the first author to view the partic-ipants’ excerpts easily under each theme toensure the theme represented the data. Next,the relationship between the generated themeswas considered to ensure they work togetherin delivering an overall story of the data.Braun and Clarke (2012) note that goodthemes work together yet are distinctive andstand alone. The first and second authors dis-cussed and agreed on the resulting themes (seeAppendix A for thematic analysis flowcharts).

Eliciting Human Intelligence 7

Phase 5 involved defining and naming thethemes, which should be related but not overlap(Braun & Clarke, 2006). The data were inter-preted with an essentialist approach, allowingthe first author to explore experiences andmeanings in a straightforward way. This isbecause an essentialist approach assumes thatlanguage reflects and enables participants toarticulate meaning and experience (Potter &Wetherell, 1987). Therefore, a semanticapproach to the thematic analysis was per-formed, in that the themes were identifiedwithin the surface meaning of the data. Thisprocess progressed from description, by sum-marising the semantic content and interpretingthe data with regard to broader implications(Patton, 1990), and was discussed in relation tothe rapport literature.

Finally, Phase 6 comprises the productionof the report. In line with Braun and Clarke’s(2012) guidance, the developed themes withinthis research strived to build on the previoustheme to tell a coherent story regarding rap-port. While some qualitative research separatesthe discussion of the themes from the results,the present research incorporated the discus-sion of the literature into the analysis in orderto avoid repetition. As a consequence, a‘Results and discussion’ section was produced.An integrated approach is argued to work wellwhen the collected data hold strong connec-tions with existing research (Braun & Clarke,2012). This research aimed to explore thesource handlers’ perceptions and experiencesof rapport during CHIS interactions in order todevelop our understanding of rapport from asample of police officers who have not previ-ously been subjected to research.

Results and discussion

The next section outlines the qualitative resultsand discusses them with regard to the rapport-based interviewing literature and policingpractices of gathering HUMINT, with a par-ticular focus on source handler interactionswith CHIS. From the analysis, six themeswere developed: (i) rapport is essential: ‘no

rapport, no intelligence’; (ii) defining rapportwithin the HUMINT context; (iii) effectivecommunication; (iv) empathy and CHIS wel-fare; (v) indicators of rapport: a working alli-ance; and (vi) training rapport. Each of thesethemes is discussed in turn with exemplar quo-tations that best demonstrate the identifiedthemes from the participants’ responses.

(i) Rapport is essential: ‘no rapport, nointelligence’

Participants were asked to comment on theimportance of rapport in an intelligence gath-ering interaction with human sources of intelli-gence (i.e. CHIS). Rapport was perceived as afundamental element when interactingwith CHIS:

Very big, essential, if you haven’t got thatrapport and you can’t build rapport withthat person some people are very difficult,and even if you build the rapport it canstill be very, very hard, because somepeople are not easy to speak to, it’sessential, without it you’re banging yourhead against a brick wall. (Participant 19)

Rapport is considered essential to thesource handler and CHIS relationship due tothe underlying objective of maintaining therelationship’s longevity. The weight placed onrapport may depend upon the situation facedby the source handler. This is eloquently out-lined by Participant 4, who discusses how asource is identified, a source’s willingness toengage and the importance of joint goals asimportant factors in developing a rap-port strategy:

If an interview is being conductedwhereby the subject has identifiedthemselves as having information ofpotential value to authorities, then rapportis less important than in a situationwhereby the subject has been identifiedvia other means as a person that should beapproached as a potential intelligenceasset. The context of this answer is thatthere have been numerous times wherebya person has had information that theywish to pass to the authorities, however,

8 J. Nunan et al.

have no desire at all to continue with anykind of follow-up relationship. If this is thecase, it should be recognised immediately,and the development of rapport should beprioritised against the importance of theinformation being past if this is to be asingle one-off encounter. If any lastingrelationship is sought; then rapportbuilding, and maintenance could beconsidered as a critical part of anyinterview or debrief. If common ground (orthe perception of common ground) andmutual respect is not established quickly,then this may jeopardise future trust or theprospect of any continued relationship. Inmost cases I have dealt with, there hasneeded to be a prompt framework ofunderstanding between the subject and theHUMINT officer – an idea of what we bothwant, where our two paths coincide, whatwe can agree or disagree on before beingable to move forward. (Participant 4)

While previous research has reported thatrapport needs to be built and maintainedthroughout the interview (Walsh & Bull,2012), the importance of rapport is stressedfurther when trying to encourage an individualto become an authorised CHIS. Further still, tothen engage in such an ongoing relationshiprequires a level of coordination (Tickle-Degnen & Rosenthal, 1990) and trust in orderto establish an operational accord (Kleinman,2006; Tickle-Degnen, 2002). Providing aCHIS with an adequate level of trust and likingwas expanded upon by one participant as akey element of rapport and potential intelli-gence yield:

Rapport is massive because you know it’svoluntary [being a CHIS], although theywill sometimes get rewarded, it’svoluntary, you’re asking them to give uptheir own time, to keep it a secret fromtheir family and from their friends, thediscretion, to then want to meet you, totravel out of their area to come to see you,to do certain things before they meet you,to then go home, so you’re taking a goodchunk of their life out so they’ve got towant to do that, so if they don’t like youthey aren’t going to come and see you, soit’s a massive part. (Participant 20)

(ii) Defining rapport within theHUMINT context

The definition of rapport within the context ofan intelligence gathering interview wasexplored. From the responses, three subthemesemerged, reinforcing earlier definitions of rap-port (e.g. Stanier & Nunan, 2018): (a) estab-lishing common ground and trust; (b)reciprocity; and (c) a professional ongoingrelationship.

(a) Establishing common ground and trust

In order to progress a relationship, a commonunderstanding is required, which ultimately isbased on trust, and an adaptive interviewingbehaviour associated with enhanced cooper-ation from the interviewee (see Christiansenet al., 2018). Hence, establishing trust requiresnot simply building up the interviewee’s confi-dence to raise issues, but also having theseaddressed by the interviewer. Openness isgained through trust, by placing the inter-viewee at ease and by using open questions(Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011), thusencouraging a willingness to share informationthat may be actionable (i.e. intelligence). Themajority of participants in the current studyprovided support for the process of placing theinterviewee at ease, building trust and thenestablishing a common ground as vital to thebuilding and maintenance of rapport:

Trying to find some common ground withthe person that you’re with, so a lot of thetime we’ll go into a meeting and the firstpart of that meeting won’t be work, it willbe how are you doing? How’s the family?How are the kids? Did you watch thefootball? Depends on the individual oryou know, did you watch the cricket? Youhave that knowledge because you’ve builtup that understanding of the person andyou are putting them at ease and you’rerelaxing them and you are sort ofimprinting on it that friendship that youhave developed and you are also saying tothem that I am not just here to get workfrom you, I am here to actually speak andget on with you, and for me that is the

Eliciting Human Intelligence 9

epitome of rapport, it’s that puttingsomeone at ease and putting someone in arelaxed situation and in a trustingrelationship with you, but when it comesdown to the fact that you’re asking themfor that information you’re getting thecorrect information. (Participant 16)

Prior to an interaction with a CHIS, thesource handler has the opportunity to plan andprepare. Within the HUMINT context, thisconsists of using both open and closed sourcesof information to research the person of inter-est, as well as undertaking meetings with asource controller. However, discussionsbetween source handlers and source control-lers tend to be focused on tradecraft (e.g. howthe interaction is going to take place securelyand what information the source handlerseeks) rather than elicitation and rapport-build-ing techniques (Stanier & Nunan, 2018). It istherefore unsurprising that a number of partici-pants reported that underpreparedness as beingan ineffective strategy for establishing rapport,as this can lead to a limited amount of infor-mation known about the CHIS, which in turncreates fewer rapport-building hooks to utilise(Cooper, 2011). Hence, research can identifypersonal interests, lifestyle characteristics andmotivations that may be utilised as rapport-building hooks:

I think research is important, trying tounderstand your candidate or customerhowever you want to put it, and find somethemes that might resonate between thetwo of you and whether that is a generalmoral grounding on the same beliefs ofwanting to improve the world or whetherthat is a football team or an area you havetravelled to, so I think the most theimportant strategy for me is a bit ofresearch and when the research fails beflexible and be guided by them.(Participant 17)

However:

Use of pre-prepared ‘script’ – verydifficult to appear natural and intervieweevery likely to go off script leaving you illprepared. (Participant 1)

As Participants 1 and 17 interestinglyhighlight, flexibility is key to the rapport-building process, especially across numerousinteractions (Christiansen et al., 2018). Hence,if the interviewer is unable to find a commonground with the interviewee, then turning theinterviewee into the subject expert can (a) pro-vide an outlet to a potentially awkward situ-ation, (b) encourage the interviewee to talk,and (c) enhance rapport, as the interviewerwill need to employ active listening to engageand show interest in the interviewee.For example:

Talking to them, asking them, and if Idon’t know about something if I am withsomebody [second source handler] theymight be the better person to buildrapport, or the other way will be if thatI’m not an expert on what they want totalk about actually turning them into theexpert, and actually admitting that I don’tknow everything, so actually I am quitehuman, I don’t know much about football,I don’t know much about [football team]so tell me about it, and actually turn theminto the expert which actually puts themup on a pedestal as well. (Participant 18)

(b) Reciprocity

CHIS understand that source handlers want togain access to the information that they hold.Similar to Goodman-Delahunty and Howes(2016), source handlers recognised that therelationship with their CHIS cannot be one-directional, but should rather be a reciprocalrelationship:

It’s the same as maintaining any goodfriendship that you’ve got to put the effortin, it’s got to be two way, and because anyrelationship has got to be reciprocal, ifyou don’t provide that effort you won’tget the effort back, so you’ve always gotto take into account from the initialcontact. (Participant 22)

Furthermore, participants stated thatremembering personal details of the CHIS isan important factor for maintaining rapport,for example:

10 J. Nunan et al.

Remembering about their family,remembering about their birthdays,remembering about their holidays,remembering about important stuff intheir life. (Participant 20)

This invested interest has been shown tosolidify relationships (Leach, 2005; Vanderhallen et al., 2011), thus maintaining rapport:

Not showing an interest in the CHIS,they’ll pick up straight up, they’ll pick upstraight away if you don’t show anyinterest in them, so if you say to them, ifyou’re sat there like, how’s the family?How’s your son? How’s your daughter?Everything alright? Good thanks, boom,move on, they will be like, really? are youinterested? So you’ve got to say to themlike, how’s your son? What’s he doing? Ahhe’s doing this? My lads been doing that,and he’s been doing this. You interactbecause you pick some familiarity that youhave with what they’re doing and introduceit in, because that then gives them, it’s like,ah actually he is a human being, he doesthink like me, things happen to him thathappen to me, boom, you’ve got therelation there, there’s something they canrelate to. (Participant 11)

Friendly or empathic approaches wereoften coupled with acts of hospitality (e.g.Goodman-Delahunty & Howes, 2016). Hence,to help build the relationship, source handlersmust invest time and effort to show genuinecare, understanding and empathy towards theCHIS, such as:

Doing stuff they enjoy, for instance takingthem out walking, go out walking for aday, just go around the [location] just tooka backpack go walking and just chat,nothing to do with the business just go andchat, just walk out, they might like motorracing take them to the races for day, youknow do stuff that they like that you canjust chat and get to know them a little bit,now I find that effective because the nexttime you go they’ll think they are investingin me, they are doing this for me, so for mean effective way is doing something notwork related i.e. not trying to get

intelligence out of them but just go and dosomething for a day. (Participant 20)

(c) A professional ongoing relationship

A commonality amongst the current partici-pants was that rapport was considered to bethe forming or building of an ongoing relation-ship that can be both built and lost (Walsh &Bull, 2012). Ultimately, interviewees are thesource of vital information, and participantsfrom the present study likened rapport to gen-erating a professional friendship with the inter-viewee, as this may help overcome anybarriers, and encourage a relationship of infor-mation exchange:

It’s for me one of the key most importantthings, I think from that initial eitherhandshake in the front office or the phonecall you make to get them into a policestation, however it is you’re going to do it,just actually speaking to somebodyprofessionally, properly, politely, all thosebasic things which sometimes get takenfor granted, that is the start of the rapport.(Participant 14)

Participants discussed rapport as critical inproviding the interviewee with the confidenceto open up, positively challenge the inter-viewer, declare concerns, to ensure that theCHIS does not put themselves at risk and toenhance a professional working alliance(Tickle-Degnen, 2002; Vanderhallen et al.,2011). One participant further acknowledgedthe importance of establishing rapport that wasbuilt on a professional foundation:

It’s a fine balance I believe, it’s a finebalance between being friendly withsomebody and that person believing thatyou’re their friend, but you have to havethat professional part of you where your,when I’m in that world I’ll be your friendbut as soon as I step out of that world I amthe professional that I need to be, butwhen I come and meet you I’m yourfriend, they have to believe that, becausewhen you’re their friend, they will tell youall kinds of things, if they see you as the

Eliciting Human Intelligence 11

authorities what they tell you might bevery clipped. (Participant 11)

Moreover, underpinning the relationshiprequires a professional boundary. Though aninformal and friendly approach is encouragedto open up the interviewee, if the relationshiploses its professional foundation a CHIS mayend up at risk:

I’ve got a source at the moment who I’vehad to take them to task and say, look youneed to sort of switch on, because he seesme as his mate and there’s the issues, someof the stuff that started happening waswoah hang on a minute, yeah we arefriends however this is a professionalrelationship, don’t cross the boundarybecause then your safety then gets put atrisk, and we don’t want that to happen,you’ve got to identify that. (Participant 11)

Although many participants acknowledgedthat an element of friendship was important tothe relationship, ultimately, a level of contin-ued professionalism demands a level of reci-procity, it can keep the interaction focused,and most importantly, it ensures the CHIS’welfare is in check (Billingsley, 2003):

You have to get that information and alsohow many people know what the sourceknows, so if the source is saying to youMr X and Mr Y are doing this, this andthis, on this day, you need to then besaying, right ok well how many peopleknow that information? Well only I knowthat information, well then what can wedo with that information? We’ve got thatinformation but if we then leak thatinformation out our source gets burnt, sothen we have to parallel that information.(Participant 11)

Participants frequently associated thesource handler and CHIS relationship with thenotion of operational accord (Kleinman,2006). This is because an appreciation of theinterviewee’s concerns and intentions togetherwith the desired outcomes of the interactionare considered important elements of rapport(Evans et al., 2010):

Rapport is ongoing. When you have run aCHIS for a long time, it is about notbecoming overly personal with them butcontinuing to be professional and to acertain extent a friend or support to theCHIS from time to time. It is worthreviewing your relationship with yourCHIS from time to time in a reflectiveway. It is worth debriefing meetings witha controller or co-handler. It is also worthusing the services of [operational partners]which can offer invaluable insight intoaspects of your CHIS. (Participant 5)

(iii) Effective communication

The elicitation of timely, detailed and reliableintelligence is vital for subsequent investiga-tive decision-making (James, 2013), whichsubsequently influences the outcomes of pro-active and reactive criminal investigations(Chappell, 2015; James et al., 2016). Thus, tomaximise the elicitation process, it is import-ant that the Source Handler has adequateknowledge of the intelligence requirement.This is because, even if all the elicitation tech-niques are maximised, if the questions them-selves do not elicit relevant information, thenthe overall interaction is sub-optimal. One par-ticipant noted that the aims and objectives ofthe interview are just as important as rapport,as they ultimately work hand in hand:

So I would say, knowledge of why you’rethere, knowledge of your subject,knowledge of what you’re after, youraims, your objectives sits right next torapport, because you could have all therapport in the world but how do you steerthe conversation if you don’t know whatyou are there for, secondly if you knowexactly why you’re there but you haveno rapport with the individual theconversation doesn’t take place, sothey’ve got to be equal. (Participant 21)

The PEACE model of investigative interview-ing could be successfully applied to the intelli-gence interview (e.g., Stanier & Nunan, 2018),especially when such importance is placedupon the planning and preparation of an

12 J. Nunan et al.

interview, as well as a need for rapport devel-opment and maintenance throughout (Clarke& Milne, 2001, 2016; Walsh & Bull, 2012).

Interviews that possess overly officiousinteractions, and therefore lack a working alli-ance have been argued to impede rapport(Milne & Bull, 1999), and this especiallyapplies within an intelligence gathering con-text whereby the interaction will most likelyencourage cooperation through informal prac-tices, rather than conducting a suspect-likeinterview with a CHIS:

Just coming straight to the point in whatyou’re after, no pleasantries, no rapportbuilding, just literally, thanks for comingin, this is what I want, have you got it, yesor no? Okay leave, I think that is a way toclose your subject down and not get muchfrom the relationship. (Participant 14)

However, the formality can depend upon theCHIS, and it is part of the Source Handler’srole to understand what works. Participantsdiscussed considerations such as what timeand location is convenient to the CHIS, andwhere they would feel most relaxed.

Half of the participants stated that effectivecommunication skills and style were beneficialto establishing rapport. Incorporated withineffective communication is effective listening,a skill considered vital to a successful inter-view (Milne & Bull, 1999). In an attempt toestablish a common ground with the inter-viewee, effective listening can provide theinterviewer with information relating to theinterviewee’s interests:

Very often if you listen for long enoughyou find what people want to talk aboutrather than going in with your ownpreconception, research in advance,brilliant, but then listen and let’s find outwhat that individual wants to talk about.(Participant 17)

Moreover, participants stated that effectiveverbal communication with a CHIS is through

soft intelligence questions such as indirectquestioning, supported by the following:

Paraphrasing, effective interactionbetween handlers, tone, and effective useof pauses. (Participant 6)

With regard to nonverbal rapport, effectiveobservation of the CHIS’ nonverbals, as wellas effective use of nonverbal behaviour on theinterviewer’s part was considered importantby participants in the current study and byprevious research (Goodman-Delahunty et al.,2014; Russano et al., 2014). Examplesincluded mirroring and:

Good use of eye contact, good use ofNVC’s [nonverbal cues], and a handshaketo establish appropriate personal contact.(Participant 5)

The implementation of effective nonverbaltechniques (e.g., mirroring behaviour and dis-playing understanding via empathy) has alsobeen perceived by other interviewers as effect-ive rapport building techniques (Abbe &Brandon, 2013; Vallano et al., 2015).

(iv) Empathy and CHIS Welfare

It is important to note that RIPA legally man-dates the security and welfare of a CHIS to bemonitored. Nonetheless, a demonstration ofempathy towards the CHIS’ circumstancesand welfare was perceived to be an effectiverapport-building strategy. This may be demon-strated by displaying humanity and caretowards the CHIS by trying to identify theirworries and concerns (Abbe &Brandon, 2013):

On some occasions acting on what they’resaying, so even if it’s got nothing to dowith the reasons why you’re there, it’simportant to them so it’s something thatshould be given some sort of attention, Isuppose examples would be if there is anevent going on in their life which has gotnothing to do with what I’m there for, I’llperhaps put a welfare call in, in between

Eliciting Human Intelligence 13

my sort of process, and just purely to talkabout that incident in their life, whether itbe a children’s football match orsomething just to show I was listening towhat they said and in actual fact I’mpaying an interest and attention, and then Iwon’t ask anything from them on that call.(Participant 14)

A third of the participants reported that alack of empathy has a negative influence onrapport, by not addressing welfare concerns(i.e. a frustration in delays in reward paymentsor concerns regarding the taskings). Moreover,as the role of a source handler is to elicit infor-mation that is often highly personal, a lack ofempathy has been shown to be damagingtowards an existing relationship (Risan,Binder, & Milne, 2016) and a barrier againsteffective rapport building.

Throughout the process of establishing trustand common understanding, an interviewer’sempathy was considered important to the pro-cess of rapport. Empathy was frequently foundto be well received by interviewees when shar-ing highly personal information, a findingentrenched in therapeutic settings (e.g. Leach,2005; Miller & Rollnick, 1992). Empathy cantake many forms, and cover a number of aCHIS’ circumstances:

Social, economic, religious considerationof the source, taking account of the sourcesmental state. Having a consideration forany medical needs, alternative meetingarrangements and locations. Basing thedebrief initially around rapport building,researching the above factors so thatcommon interests/hobbies etc. can bediscussed. (Participant 9)

As noted, the CHIS’ welfare was per-ceived as highly important, especially withregard to maintaining rapport. Participantsstated that basic humanity, being supportiveand demonstrating an understanding of theCHIS’ circumstances all form part of provid-ing welfare attention. Additionally, sourcehandlers providing easy, regular and

convenient contact was perceived to be key toreinforcing the notion of taking an interest:

Regular communication that is notinterrupting in any way in time or place.(Participant 23)

(v) Indicators of rapport: a working alliance

Across the data, participants discussed anarray of indicators that they perceived asdemonstrating rapport. Rapport was discussedby some participants with regard to its influ-ence on intelligence yield. Previous researchsuggests that rapport-based interviewing sup-ports information disclosure across numerousinterviewing contexts (Alison et al., 2013;Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014), as well asbeing perceived to be the most effective inter-viewing approach (Redlich et al., 2014).Participants’ perceptions from the currentstudy were found to be aligned with suchevidence. Rapport was considered importantto the CHIS’ openness, thus, impactingon not only intelligence quantity butalso quality:

A relaxed CHIS is going to give you thebest intel product, if they’re at ease andthere is no issues and they are wanting totell you that information because of therelationship and rapport you’ve built upwith them, then you’re going to get thebest product from them, and the mostuntainted product, because it’s all aboutencouraging someone to openly speak toyou, and the best way to do that is to geton with someone, as it is in all walks oflife, if you get on with someone you’remore likely to speak to them in a niceopen way and just talk . . . it’s that openbit that’s the key bit, because if they’reclosed you’re not going to get the fullpicture. (Participant 16)

Furthermore, participants discussed theCHIS’ work ethic towards a task set by themas a way of understanding whether rapportwas present. In line with the development of aworking alliance (Vanderhallen et al., 2011),

14 J. Nunan et al.

participants equated the CHIS’ work ethic tohaving rapport with that individual. This wasdemonstrated by a:

Willingness of CHIS to go the ‘extra mile’to satisfy a tasking (Lawfully!!).(Participant 2)as well as a:

General upbeat positive attitude. Thesource themselves asking for opportunitiesfor development that the handling teammay have missed. Having a genuineinterest in the subject matter. Regularpositive outcomes from taskingopportunities. (Participant 9)

The tasking outcome was also perceived tobe an important indicator of rapport, wherebyparticipants alluded to both detailed and reli-able intelligence. If the use of rapport has beenshown to assist elicitation in a number of inter-viewing contexts (e.g. Alison et al., 2013;Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014; Redlichet al., 2014; Vallano et al., 2015), then usingthe tasking outcome or intelligence yield (e.g.ORBIT; Alison et al., 2013) may be one wayof demonstrating that rapport is present.

From a nonverbal perspective, participantsnoted that observing, and to some extent sens-ing, the CHIS’ relaxed body language (e.g.take their coat off, smiling or mirroring thesource handler’s behaviour) was one way ofknowing rapport had been achieved. This reso-nates with being comfortable in the interactionand is exemplified by the following partici-pant’s response:

Body language, laughter, smiling, eyecontact, if they do relax, if they do take adrink off you, you know it’s just gettingthat whole sort of, it’s hard to sortof vocalise really, it’s just itsunderstanding, looking at the person, yes,they’re relaxed, it’s like an intuitionreally, I know it sounds probably silly butit’s pretty intuitive this game.(Participant 13)

With regard to the verbal aspect of aninteraction, what is divulged by the CHIS and

how they share that information was perceivedto be an important indicator of rapport. Aswith personal relationships, the amount of per-sonal information shared can heavily dependupon the existing relationship with the personreceiving that information. A lack of rapport,as a result of maladaptive behaviours (e.g.judgemental, unfriendly or distrustful; Alison& Alison, 2017) can quickly generate negativeperceptions of the interviewer and thus closedown the interviewee’s willingness to sharemeaningful information (Russano et al., 2014;Semel, 2012). Hence, when an intervieweebegins to share personal information, this maybe a strong indicator of rapport, and that theinterviewee feels the relationship is at anappropriate level to divulge such information:

How they’re speaking to you, I think ifthey’re openly discussing things with youI think that’s a big one, some peoplemight hold back in the first one or twomeetings but as the relationshipprogresses they start telling you moreabout their personal circumstances, I thinkalso you start seeing a personality of thatperson, so rather than just being sort ofstraight faced, they might start laughingand joking and throwing a little bit ofthemselves into it, so yeah easy to speakto. (Participant 19)

A relaxed environment, through both ver-bal and nonverbal techniques, not only hasbeen found to influence an individual to shareinformation (i.e. quantity) but can also posi-tively impact on the quality of memory recall(Vallano et al., 2015). Moreover, rapport-based interviewing may encourage multipleretrieval attempts (Memon et al., 1997), which,supported by the use of open-ended questions,should maximise the elicitation of intelligence(Vallano & Schreiber Compo, 2011).

(vi) Training rapport

A number of participants (n¼ 7) perceivedthat rapport could not be something that a per-son can be trained to develop, suggesting thatrapport appears feigned if a person does not

Eliciting Human Intelligence 15

possess an innate ability to build rapport,for example:

I think you can assess how comfortablesomebody is at building rapport andcertainly within [previous training] there areelements of that course that focus on that, sothey’ll take you into a public houseenvironment and tell you to strike up aconversation with two different people inthere and extract x number of pieces ofinformation from them, so you can assesshow comfortable somebody is as doing that,but if somebody is not comfortable at doingit I am not convinced you train them to becomfortable. (Participant 17)

However, the majority of participants(n¼ 17) believed that training can help peopleto build rapport. Participants noted that for rap-port training, individuals require an existingnatural basis of interpersonal skills, which inturn can be developed through training.Participants perceived interpersonal skills toinvolve elements of verbal and nonverbal com-munication techniques, adequate self-aware-ness, being personable, and genuine empathy(Redlich et al., 2014; Risan et al., 2016). Oneparticipant compared training rapport to inter-view training:

Can you train someone to interview?Yeah you can, you can teach them alegislative framework, are they going tobe naturally good at it? Maybe yes, maybeno, natural communicators are people whocan naturally interview, an interview isjust a conversation with some legalframework, rapport building, if you’re notthe sort of person who walks in, hi howyou doing? Big smile, bit of eye contact,bit of confidence, then you’re probablynever going to do it, it’s almost like a littlebit false and stuttery, you can becomebetter at it, you know there are some goodskills and tricks you can teach people, butyou know things naturally we do, when Iam talking to you we do nod, we smile,we want to send out those receptors thatyou’re going in the right direction, almosthere now if I was saying somethingcompletely batty, you don’t agree with,you’re not there shaking your head tutting,

because I will dry up very quickly . . . youknow it doesn’t matter if you agree withit, what matters is they’re talking, so Ithink you can train it to a point, I thinkthere’s some natural skills, some peopleare naturally more gregarious, we look athow people are recruited in radicalisation,you know they are naturally gregarious, ifyou ask someone to sit down and say whywere you radicalised? What was thatperson like? They were engaging, theywere gregarious, I had confidence in them,what do you want from your handler? Oh,I want them to be gregarious, haveconfidence in them, so there’s quitesimilar skills those people withmanipulation skills. (Participant 24)

Participants referred to training rapport byhighlighting techniques that assist with rapportbuilding and its maintenance, which includedtraining on social psychology, communicationand persuasion:

I’ve been taught it by a lecture or atraining day, material about reciprocity,liking, authority, scarcity, social proof,commitment and consistency, a body ofwork by Robert Calidini about salestechniques, how to build the rapport andrelationship to sell them a product, all thatstuff applies within CHIS handling, so Isuppose if you teach that you can teachrapport building. (Participant 22)

It is likely that source handlers alreadyimplicitly use motivational interviewing skills;however, training that incorporates motiv-ational interviewing may reinforce effectiveinterviewers to become more aware of theskills they are using to build rapport (Alisonet al., 2015). Further still, it is important thatsource handlers are aware of how maladaptivebehaviours may be detrimental to rapport(Alison et al., 2014) and ultimately intelligencecollection (Alison & Alison, 2017).

By building upon the natural communica-tion skills that already exist within the sourcehandler, the development of effective commu-nication is the foundation of both establishingand maintaining rapport. Additionally, oneparticipant highlighted that:

16 J. Nunan et al.

I think they can train the handlers toidentify how they can get the hooks intothe person. (Participant 11)

Training source handlers to identify thehooks of a CHIS refers to quickly understand-ing the CHIS’ motivations (Billingsley, 2001)and establishing a common ground, and usingthis to influence rapport, thus in turn assistingwith elicitation. Perceived to be trainable, thiseffective technique could significantly impactupon the outcome of an interaction, especiallyin relation to ideological hooks, which haveshown to be influential motivators for CHIS(e.g. Cooper, 2011).

Finally, participants perceived that learn-ing from good examples and scenario-basedtraining were effective ways of training rap-port. Exposure to various settings was consid-ered highly beneficial to rapport development,such as training in a safe environment, learn-ing from previous life experiences and learn-ing from other colleagues:

Seeing how the other guys are buildingrapport and how they’re engaging with anindividual, subtly you go through thattraining in as much as, ah so you hadsomebody that does that, and they go oh Iparticularly like that bit, the comment thatthey made, the rapport that they’veestablished by touching on that particularsubject. . . . but I know that for me it morethan likely wouldn’t sound right but I cando the same if I make it more personal tomyself, so it’s making it more comfortablewhen I say it, so I would say working withother people, learning it on the job andthen adapting it to your own personalbenefit. (Participant 21)

Overall, it was found that source handlerscan be made aware of techniques that can beemployed to assist with rapport (i.e. mirroring,informal introductions, politeness) and throughpractice (e.g. various scenarios). They per-ceived that training rapport can help sourcehandlers identify strategies (i.e. hooks, Cooper,2011) that work for them to build relationshipswith CHIS (Billingsley, 2001). With rapport

considered essential to the outcome of an intel-ligence gathering interaction (e.g. recruitment,intelligence yield, maintaining the relationship,persuading someone to meet again; Alisonet al., 2013; Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014;Russano et al., 2014; Stanier & Nunan, 2018),this should reinforce rapport as a vital elementof source handler training, which is currentlylacking from national source handler train-ing courses.

Limitations and future directions

The present research achieved privilegedaccess to a unique sample of police sourcehandlers who work within counter-terrorismdedicated source units: professionals who havenot previously been researched. While it isacknowledged that the sample only comprised24 participants, a number of counter-terrorismhubs across England and Wales were repre-sented, and all counter-terrorism source han-dlers are trained to the same national standard.Counter-terrorism source handling is a special-ist policing role, which, as a subsection ofpolice officers are relatively small in numbers.The present self-reported data provided a rep-resentative insight into the participants’ per-ceptions and experiences of rapport withCHIS, allowing an element of transferabilityof the results. However, rapport is a dyadicrelationship, and the present research has onlyaddressed the perceptions of one side (i.e. thesource handler). Future research may wish toaddress this by exploring the perceptions andexperiences of intelligence sources (subject toappropriate vetting and access). It is acknowl-edged that research based upon self-reporteddata is susceptible to socially desirableanswers and inaccurate memories of pastevents (Robson & McCartan, 2016). Hence,the structured interview protocol consisted ofopen-ended questions, which did not promptparticipants for answers. Since reported per-ceptions and experiences may differ to actualbehaviour, the next phase of this programme

Eliciting Human Intelligence 17

of research coded rapport in real-life audiorecorded source handler interactions.

Conclusion

This research is believed to be the first of itskind in exploring the perceptions and experi-ences of police source handlers from Englandand Wales counter-terrorism dedicated sourceunits. It was identified that rapport was per-ceived to be essential to the collection ofHUMINT, with participants stressing theimportance of building and maintaining rap-port. Effective communication, establishingcommon ground and trust, reciprocity and aconcern for welfare were considered key torapport. The majority of participants believedrapport could be trained to some degree.While rapport was not viewed exclusively as anatural skill, participants perceived that somenatural attributes are required to build rapport,with those natural attributes being refined anddeveloped through training and experience.

Rapport-based interviewing has beenshown to be effective in a range of contexts(e.g. Alison et al., 2013; Christiansen et al.,2018; Goodman-Delahunty et al., 2014;Redlich et al., 2014; Russano et al., 2014;Semel, 2012), and the present research adds tothat evidence-base. The fact that a sample ofspecialist police officers, who have not previ-ously been the subject of research, perceiveand experience rapport similarly to other lawenforcement professionals should be consid-ered a strength that advances our understand-ing of rapport, rather than a limitation. Anappreciation of the perceptions and experien-ces of HUMINT practitioners advances theacademic literature, highlights areas for futureresearch and may in turn inform practice.

This research therefore concludes that rap-port should be considered fundamental to thesource handler and CHIS relationship, due toits perceived impact on maximising intelli-gence elicitation. Taken together, the trainingmethods and rapport behaviours discussed bysource handlers in light of previous research

should be implemented into the nationalsource handler training course. Not onlyshould source handlers be made aware ofadaptive behaviours of rapport that are benefi-cial, it is vital that they are also aware of howmaladaptive behaviours may be detrimental torapport (Alison et al., 2014) and ultimatelyintelligence collection (Alison &Alison, 2017).

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Jordan Nunan has declared no conflictsof interest.Ian Stanier has declared no conflictsof interest.Rebecca Milne has declared no conflictsof interest.Andrea Shawyer has declared no conflictsof interest.Dave Walsh has declared no conflictsof interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involvinghuman participants were in accordance withthe ethical standards of the institutional and/ornational research committee (University ofPortsmouth and the Centre for Research andEvidence on Security Threats, CREST) andwith the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its lateramendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all indi-vidual participants included in the study.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all police officerswho took the time to participate, as withoutthem this research would not have been pos-sible. The authors also thank an anonymousreviewer and Laurence Alison for their

18 J. Nunan et al.

constructive reviews, which undoubtedlystrengthened this article.

Funding

This research forms part of the doctoral workof the first author, who is in receipt of a doc-toral studentship funded by the Centre forResearch and Evidence on Security Threats[ESRC Award: ES/N009614/1].

ORCID

Jordan Nunan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6187-003XIan Stanier http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6608-5295Rebecca Milne http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4542-8495Andrea Shawyer http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7311-4541Dave Walsh http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4950-6830

ReferencesAbbe, A., & Brandon, S.E. (2013). The role of

rapport in investigative interviewing: Areview. Journal of Investigative Psychologyand Offender Profiling, 10(3), 237–249. doi:10.1002/jip.1386

Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2017). Revenge versusrapport: Interrogation, terrorism, and torture.American Psychologist, 72(3), 266–277. doi:10.1037/amp0000064

Alison, L.J., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S., &Christiansen, P. (2013). Why tough tacticsfail and rapport gets results: ObservingRapport-Based Interpersonal Techniques(ORBIT) to generate useful informationfrom terrorists. Psychology, Public Policy,and Law, 19(4), 411–431. doi:10.1037/a0034564

Alison, L., Alison, E., Noone, G., Elntib, S.,Waring, S., & Christiansen, P. (2014). Theefficacy of rapport-based techniques for min-imizing counter interrogation tactics amongsta field sample of terrorists. Psychology,Public Policy, and Law, 20(4), 421–430.doi:10.1037/law0000021

Alison, L., Giles, S., & McGuire, G. (2015).Blood from a stone: Why rapport works andtorture doesn’t in ‘enhanced’ interrogations.Investigative Interviewing: Research andPractice, 7(2), 5–23.

Billingsley, R. (2001). Informers’ careers:Motivations and change. In R. Billingsley,T. Nemitz, & P. Bean (Eds.), Informers:Policing, policy, practice (pp. 81–97).London, UK: Routledge.

Billingsley, R. (2003). The police informer/hand-ler relationship: Is it really unique?International Journal of Police Science &Management, 5(1), 50–62. doi:10.1350/2Fijps.5.1.50.11241

Bird, C.M. (2005). How I stopped dreading andlearned to love transcription. QualitativeInquiry, 11(2), 226–248. doi:10.1177/1077800404273413

Birtchnell, J. (2014). The interpersonal circle andthe interpersonal octagon: A confluence ofideas. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy,21, 62–72. doi:10.1002/cpp.1819

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematicanalysis in psychology. Qualitative Researchin Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic ana-lysis. In H. Cooper. (Ed.), The handbook ofresearch methods in psychology.Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Bull, R. (2014). Investigative interviewing. NewYork, NY: Springer.

Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: science andpractice. New York: Harper Collins.

Chappell, B. (2015). The use of juvenile coverthuman intelligence sources (CHIS) inEngland: An exploratory study. UnpublishedDoctoral Thesis, University of Portsmouth,Portsmouth.

Christiansen, P., Alison, L., & Alison, E. (2018).Well begun is half done: Interpersonalbehaviours in distinct field interrogationswith high-value detainees. Legal andCriminological Psychology, 23(1), 68–84.doi:10.1111/lcrp.12111

Clark, S. (2014). Ex-CIA director Petraeus sayshe opposed detainee torture. Wall StreetJournal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-petraeus-says-he-opposed-torture-1418314146

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evalu-ation of the PEACE investigative interview-ing course. Police Research Award Scheme.London, UK: Home Office.

Eliciting Human Intelligence 19

https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.1386https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000064https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034564https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000021https://doi.org/10.1350/2Fijps.5.1.50.11241https://doi.org/10.1350/2Fijps.5.1.50.11241https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800404273413https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800404273413https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.1819https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oahttps://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oahttps://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12111http://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-petraeus-says-he-opposed-torture-1418314146http://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-petraeus-says-he-opposed-torture-1418314146http://www.wsj.com/articles/ex-cia-director-petraeus-says-he-opposed-torture-1418314146

Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2016). Interviewingsuspects in England and Wales: A NationalEvaluation of PEACE interviewing: Onedecade later. In D. Walsh, G. Oxburgh, A.Redlich, & T. Mykleburst (Eds.),International developments and practices ininvestigative interviewing and interrogation,vol 2. Suspects. London, UK: Routledge.

Cooper, R. (2011). A captive audience – recruit-ing informants within police custody blocks.Paper presented at Cambridge ExecutiveProgramme, 4th international EBP confer-ence. Retrieved from http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/events/conferences/ebp/2011/

Evans, J.R., Meissner, C.A., Brandon, S.E.,Russano, M.B., & Kleinman, S.M. (2010).Criminal versus HUMINT interrogations:The importance of psychological science toimproving interrogative practice. TheJournal of Psychiatry & Law, 38(1–2),215–249. doi:10.1177/009318531003800110

Fine, M. (2002). Disruptive voices: The possibil-ities for feminist research. Ann Arbour, MI:University of Michigan Press.

Freedman, M.B., Leary, T.F., Ossorio, A.G., &Coffey, H.S. (1951). The interpersonaldimension of personality. Journal ofPersonality, 20(2), 143–161. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1951.tb01518.x

Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Howes, L.M. (2016).Social persuasion to develop rapport in high-stakes interviews: Qualitative analyses ofAsian-Pacific practices. Policing andSociety, 26(3), 270–290. doi:10.1080/10439463.2014.942848

Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., &Dhami, M.K. (2014). Interviewing highvalue detainees: Securing cooperation anddisclosures. Applied Cognitive Psychology,28(6), 883–897. doi:10.1002/acp.3087

Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research:Gathering and analysing data. Buckingham:Open University Press.

Innes, M., & Sheptycki, J.W. (2004). Fromdetection to disruption. InternationalCriminal Justice Review, 14(1), 1–24. doi:10.1177/2F105756770401400101

Intelligence and Security Committee ofParliament. (2018). Detainee mistreatmentand rendition: 2001–2010. Retrieved fromhttps://isc.independent.gov.uk

James, A. (2013). Examining intelligence-ledpolicing: Developments in research, policyand practice. Hampshire, UK: PalgraveMacmillan.

James, A., Phythian, M., Wadie, F., & Richards,J. (2016). What works in intelligence?

Unpublished manuscript, a report for the UKCollege of Policing.

Kleinman, S.M. (2006). KUBARK counterintelli-gence interrogation review: Observations ofan interrogator. Interrogation: Science andArt, 209, 95–140.

Leach, M.J. (2005). Rapport: A key to treatmentsuccess. Complementary Therapies inClinical Practice, 11(4), 262–265. doi:10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.05.005

Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of per-sonality. New York, NY: Ronald Press.

MacDonald, S., Keeping, Z., Snook, B., &Luther, K. (2016). Do not lie to me, or else:The effect of a turncoat warning and rapportbuilding on perceptions of police inter-viewers. Journal of Police and CriminalPsychology, 32(3), 263–277. doi:10.1007/s11896-016-9219-4

Memon, A., Wark, L., Holley, A., Bull, R., &Koehnken, G. (1997). Eyewitness perform-ance in cognitive and structured interviews.Memory, 5(5), 639–656. doi:10.1080/741941481

Miller, W.R., Moyers, T.B., Ernst, D., &Amrhein, P. (2008). Manual for the motiv-ational interviewing skill code (MISC)Version 2.1. Retrieved from http://casaa.unm.edu/download/misc.pdf

Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (1992).Motivational interviewing: Preparing peoplefor change. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Milne, R., & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative inter-viewing: Psychology and practice.Chichester: Wiley.

Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (2011). The effectsof evidence on the outcome of interviewswith criminal suspects. Police Practice andResearch, 12(6), 518–526. doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.563963

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation andresearch methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park,CA: SAGE.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourseand social psychology: Beyond attitudes andbehaviour. London, UK: SAGE.

Poyser, S., Nurse, A., & Milne, R. (2018).Miscarriages of justice. Bristol, UK: PolicyPress.

Redlich, A.D., Kelly, C.E., & Miller, J.C.(2014). The who, what, and why of humanintelligence gathering: Self-reported meas-ures of interrogation methods. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 28(6), 817–828. doi:10.1002/acp.3040

20 J. Nunan et al.

http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/events/conferences/ebp/2011/http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/events/conferences/ebp/2011/https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531003800110https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1951.tb01518.xhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1951.tb01518.xhttps://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.942848https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.942848https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3087https://doi.org/10.1177/2F105756770401400101https://isc.independent.gov.ukhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.05.005https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2005.05.005https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9219-4https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9219-4https://doi.org/10.1080/741941481https://doi.org/10.1080/741941481http://casaa.unm.edu/download/misc.pdfhttp://casaa.unm.edu/download/misc.pdfhttps://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.563963https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2011.563963https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3040

Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000(EW). http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contents

Risan, P., Binder, P.E., & Milne, R.J. (2016).Emotional intelligence in police interviews—approach, training and the usefulness of theconcept. Journal of Forensic PsychologyPractice, 16(5), 410–424. doi:10.1080/15228932.2016.1234143

Robson, C., & McCartan, K. (2016). Real worldresearch. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Rollnick, S., & Miller, W.R. (1995). What ismotivational interviewing? Behavioural andCognitive Psychotherapy, 23(4), 325–334.doi:10.1017/S135246580001643X

Russano, M.B., Narchet, F.M., Kleinman, S.M.,& Meissner, C.A. (2014). Structured inter-views of experienced HUMINT interroga-tors. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 28(6),847–859. doi:10.1002/acp.3069

Semel, M.D. (2012). Military interrogations:Best practices and beliefs. New York, NY:City University of New York.

Stanier, I.P. (2013). Contemporary organisa-tional pathologies in police informationsharing: New contributions to Sheptycki’slexicon of intelligence led policing(Unpublished doctoral thesis). LondonMetropolitan University, London.

Stanier, I.P., & Nunan, J. (2018). Reframingintelligence interviews: The applicability ofpsychological research to HUMINT elicit-ation. In A. Griffiths & R. Milne (Eds.),Psychology of investigation: Theory intopractice (pp. 226–248). London: Routledge.

Taylor, G.W., & Ussher, J.M. (2001). Makingsense of S&M: A discourse analytic account.Sexualities, 4(3), 293–314. doi:10.1177/2F136346001004003002

Tickle-Degnen, L. (2002). Client-centered prac-tice, therapeutic relationship, and the use ofresearch evidence. The American Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 56(4), 470–474. doi:10.5014/ajot.56.4.470

Tickle-Degnen, L., & Rosenthal, R. (1990). Thenature of rapport and its nonverbal corre-lates. Psychological Inquiry, 1(4), 285–293.doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1

Tuckett, A.G. (2005). Applying thematic analysistheory to practice: A researcher’s experience.Contemporary Nurse, 19(1–2), 75–87. doi:10.5172/conu.19.1-2.75

Vallano, J.P., Evans, J.R., Schreiber Compo, N.,& Kieckhaefer, J.M. (2015). Rapport-build-ing during witness and suspect interviews: Asurvey of law enforcement. AppliedCognitive Psychology, 29(3), 369–380. doi:10.1002/acp.3115

Vallano, J.P., & Schreiber Compo, N. (2011). Acomfortable witness is a good witness:Rapport-building and susceptibility to misin-formation in an investigative mock-crimeinterview. Applied Cognitive Psychology,25(6), 960–970. doi:10.1002/acp.1789

Vanderhallen, M., Vervaeke, G., & Holmberg,U. (2011). Witness and suspect perceptionsof working alliance and interviewing style.Journal of Investigative Psychology andOffender Profiling, 8(2), 110–130. doi:10.1002/jip.138

Walsh, D., & Bull, R. (2012). Examining rapportin investigative interviews with suspects: Doesits building and maintenance work? Journal ofPolice and Criminal Psychology, 27(1),73–84. doi:10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x

Zunin, L., & Zunin, N. (1972). Contact: The firstfour minutes. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Eliciting Human Intelligence 21

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contentshttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/23/contentshttps://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1234143https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2016.1234143https://doi.org/10.1017/S135246580001643Xhttps://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3069https://doi.org/10.1177/2F136346001004003002https://doi.org/10.1177/2F136346001004003002https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.56.4.470https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0104_1https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.19.1-2.75https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3115https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1789https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.138https://doi.org/10.1002/jip.138https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-011-9087-x

Appendix A: Thematic analysisFirst-Order Codes Second-Order Codes Themes

Commitment

Everything

Essential

Important

Fairly critical

No rapport – no intelligence

Securing follow-up meetings

To gather the intelligence

Prioritising rapport

Rapport is fundamental

Rapport is key to gather intelligence

(i) Rapport is essential: No rapport, no

intelligence

22 J. Nunan et al.

First-Order Codes Subthemes Themes

Common ground

Communication between handlers

Open mindedness

Get to know them

Delivering on agreement

Leisure activities

Research the CHIS

Opportunity to speak

Turn CHIS into subject matter expert

a) Establishing common ground and trust

(ii) Defining Rapport within the HUMINT

Context

CHIS’ motivations

Taking an interest

Honesty

Trust

Eliciting Human Intelligence 23

First-Order Codes Second-Order Codes Themes

Effective communication

Tone

Communication style

Active listening

Interpersonal skills

Effective use of pauses

Paraphrasing

Interrupting

Continually firing questions

Planned questioning

Overly officious approach

Not too intelligence focused

Business driven

Policing jargon

Verbal behaviours of rapport

Formality of the interaction

Informal language used

Indirect questioning

Flexibility

(iii) Effective communication

Note: This flowchart continues onto the next page, therefore the theme is repeated.

24 J. Nunan et al.

First-Order Codes Second-Order Codes Themes

Nonverbal behaviour

Observe CHIS’ body language

Eye contact

Mirroring

Shake hands

Look interested

Positive impression

Note-taking

Nonverbal behaviours of rapport

(iii) Effective communication

Eliciting Human Intelligence 25

First-Order Codes Second-Order Codes Themes

Welfare of the CHIS

Regular contact

Detailed tasking

Suitable Handler

Confidence in the Handler

Plan and prepare for meetings

Meeting environment

Empathy

Rewarding the CHIS

Welfare of the CHIS

Empathy

(iv) Empathy and CHIS welfare

Valuing the CHIS

26 J. Nunan et al.

First-Order Codes Second-Order Codes Themes

Delivers intelligence

Best end product

Positive response to tasking

CHIS provides information freely

Source asks for opportunities

Level of engagement

CHIS is relaxed

Place CHIS at ease

CHIS views Handlers as a team

Intelligence provided

Working alliance

(v) Indicators of rapport: A working

alliance

Working alliance

CHIS looks forward to meetings

CHIS requests Handler’s advice

Instinct

Intuition

Eliciting Human Intelligence 27

AbstractIntroductionInterviewing for intelligenceRapport: cultivating HUMINTRapport-based interviewing

MethodParticipantsMaterialsProcedureData analysis

Results and discussion(i) Rapport is essential: ‘no rappo