By: Liz Rooney
Accessible interviewing in remote investigations can involve a determination about accommodations a given witness may need to comfortably participate. This can include things like regular breaks, getting up and moving around, or subtitling.
We have begun seeing some unique accommodations requests from individuals who identify as neurodiverse. While training and general advice for these kinds of accommodations exists, we have found it to be generally too abstract. Tips like, “Use plain language,” “Give extra processing time,” and “Provide sensory comfort,” are common. In practice, some requests we have seen have been more specific, and more fraught. Certain requests sit at the intersection of two legitimate but competing interests: the participant’s need for a fair, accessible process, and our need, as investigators, for an interview that produces reliable evidence.
Three kinds of requests that we have begun to see in this context include the request to be interviewed off camera, a request to use generative AI during the interview, and a request for written questions – either before or during an interview.
Request 1: To Be Interviewed Off-Camera
Why it’s raised. For some neurodivergent witnesses, being on camera adds a cognitive load to their experience that can include managing eye contact, facial expressions, and posture simultaneously with recalling and articulating substantive information. Turning the camera off can relieve this burden and give the person more ability to focus on and answer the questions well. We have also seen this accommodation request come up for other reasons, not related to neurodiversity such as interview location, fear/anxiety with the process or simple discomfort about being “on camera.”
The tension. In most cases, investigators in remote interview settings need to assure their witnesses are alone, and in a spot where they cannot be overheard by others. This requirement is in place to prevent coaching or the loss of confidentiality in the process, and is also a best practice to ensure that the data being provided is coming from the witness themselves (and not a written document or other data source).
A few ideas about how to approach the issue:
- Separate whether to grant this accommodation from how to protect interview integrity once granted. These are two different problems, not one.
- Part of that process may be determining if the employer has granted an accommodation like this to the person in their work environment. An accommodation at work is not necessary the end of the inquiry, but is important information for you to have.
- If the witness is comfortable with a short on-line introduction, describe the importance of confidentiality and privacy in the interview space and obtain the witness’s agreement to proceed in a room by themselves with good sound protection.
- Document the request and the reasoning for granting or declining it, the same way you’d document any other procedural decision. This protects the integrity of the process if it’s challenged later.
- Remote interviews used to happen by phone, in the olden days.[1] It is possible to get good evidence, and conduct credibility assessments, without seeing the person live.[2]
Request 2: To Use AI (or a Witness Simply Using It)
Why it’s raised. This can emerge in a few different ways in a workplace investigation interview. A participant may ask to use an AI tool for real-time transcription or note-support; a participant may ask to use AI to help organize or process a question before answering; or, in some cases, an investigator may suspect that a witness is generating their actual response by using an AI tool live during the interview, without disclosing their use.
The tension. The use of a tool that can potentially generate substantive data implicates a concern about evidence integrity, for obvious reasons. Live AI risks capturing the AI tool’s synthesis rather than the witness’s own account, which is the entire purpose of the investigative interview. Use of public AI tools, or even paid-subscription level tools without appropriate safeguards, can also risk breaching confidentiality of investigation data. At the same time, these tools may provide needed assistance to enable some individuals to provide the best data. This may include processing support in using a tool that helps someone reread the inquiry or organize a question. It could also include timeline organization after the witness provides their recall, or help tracking documents the witness mentions during the interview.
A few ideas for approaching this issue
- Have a discussion, on the record, about the expectations around generative AI use in the interview. If there is a request to use AI, it is helpful to have a discussion as to the purpose and parameters.
- It’s reasonable to permit assistive or organizational use while declining to permit the tool for generating substantive responses. An investigator should be prepared to discuss the reasons for both kinds of use in an investigations context.
- It’s also reasonable to address the kinds of information that can – and cannot – be entered into a third-party tool. Confidentiality of investigative information is an important part of nearly every workplace investigation.
- If you suspect covert AI use during an interview, you may decide to address it in the moment, or address it in your report, if you believe it has impacted the reliability of the data you have obtained from this witness.
Request 3: Questions in Writing (In Advance or In the Moment)
Why it’s raised. For participants who process language more slowly, more literally, or non-linearly, having the actual text of a question, rather than only hearing it spoken once, can be imperative in the witness’s understanding. It might mean the difference between an accurate, complete account and a rushed, partial one. This kind of request can also come up where a witness is being interviewed in a language that is not their first or native language.[3]
The tension. Investigators often rely on a degree of spontaneity in an interview to evaluate a witness’s response to a question in the moment. Unscripted questions that follow a new line of evidence, the witness’s real-time responses, and the ability to ask follow-up questions in the moment, are central components to nearly every workplace investigations. Providing full written questions in advance risks rehearsed or coached answers, coordination among multiple witnesses in a shared matter, or tipping an important party off to lines of inquiry in a way that could compromise the investigation’s neutrality.
Some tips in approaching this issue
- Consider providing topics in advance instead of exact questions. This may alleviate concerns of surprise or anxiety about real-time recall of events for the witness.
- In-the-moment written text, either by displaying your screen or using a subtitling tool, can resolve the accessibility need without the coordination or coaching risk that comes with advance written questions.
- If advance written questions are genuinely necessary, and are the only way you are going to obtain the evidence, do it! Be sure to reserve the option of asking specific follow-up questions for the interview.
- Whatever is decided, treat it consistently across similarly situated participants in the same matter. Inconsistent handling of this kind of accommodation request across witnesses risks the fairness and defensibility of your process.
Final Thoughts
Each of these requests carries a legitimate accessibility rationale and a legitimate evidentiary integrity concern at the same time. The challenge we face is trying to find the version of accommodation that serves the witness’s genuine need, without hollowing out the evidentiary value of the interview itself. Finding the best evidence is paramount, as my friend Keith Rohman from Public Interest Investigations puts it, “The Truth Matters”![4]
[1] The phrase “olden days” means a time long ago in the past, often used with a sense of fondness, nostalgia, or to describe a simpler way of life before modern technology. (Thanks to online AI for this definition).
[2] For more information on credibility assessments, take a look at our article (and other online resources): https://ilgdenver.com/2025/01/credibility-assessment/
[3] We always advise our clients, where possible, to utilize the services of a trained and degreed/certified language interpreter translator.
[4] Trademarked by Public Interest Investigations, borrowed with permission.