Interviewing

My primary research method was interviewing. This approach is considered useful for both exploring individual perceptions and locating them in their social and cultural context (McCracken, 1988, Mason, 1996). Additionally it can be used to examine processes of change, which I hoped to gain insight into by considering migrants’ past, present and future (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). The diversity of attitudes from my varied sample of respondents was likely to be most effectively captured by allowing them space to express themselves fully. I therefore used in- depth interviews, which as the term implies, is able to create ‘deep’

understandings of multifarious meanings, emotions and experiences (Johnson, 2002). However, it is also important to acknowledge that language reconstitutes

Name/organisation Role

David Blunkett Home Secretary - 2001-2004

Mark Rimmer

National Local Government Spokesperson for Citizenship Ceremonies; conducted first

citizenship ceremony

Mary Coussey

Member of Life in the UK advisory group (2002-2003); Chair of Advisory Board on Naturalisation and Integration (2004-2008)

Home Office Nationality policy-making team

Bradford Metropolitan County Council Citizenship registrar Bradford Metropolitan County Council Citizenship registrar

Calderdale Council Citizenship registrar

North Yorkshire County Council Citizenship registrar

Leeds City Council Citizenship registrar

West Yorkshire Lieutenancy Dignitary

events, rather than directly accessing lived experience (Denzin, 1991, Mason, 1996). It is argued that in-depth migrant-focused interviews are necessary to depict the complexities of their identities and subjectivities, which can then be connected to wider social structures (Lawson, 2000). Given the range of interconnecting social positions my sample occupied, it is doubtful that any other method could have successfully captured the nuances of their experiences.

The main limitation of the traditional interview for my research was that it is based on talk and text, therefore detracting from the visual and spatial, which are

important facets of identity and belonging. Additionally, the interview is based in a particular, constrained context (Mason, 1996), potentially undermining its ability to connect to everyday life. Furthermore, the formal setting can be intimidating to participants and it was important to put them at ease. When interviewing expats, Jackson (2011) moved from semi-structured to open-ended interviewing, finding that informality generated greater depth and detail within the interviews. It is contended that a conversational approach with minimal intervention allowing participant greater control of the interview is one way to create more equal relationships (Lee, 1993). I therefore adopted a relatively open-ended approach, adding in more structure when discussing the specifics of the citizenship

ceremonies and tests.

Within a semi-structured interview format, the manner in which questions are approached and their ordering are also important. I used a ‘funnelling’ structure, beginning with simple questions putting participants at ease, and broaching sensitive topics later on in the interview (Rubin and Rubin, 1995, Dunn, 2000). My interview guide (see appendix B) was based on themes that I wanted to cover, rather than specific questions, in order to make the interview less artificial and formulaic. Some have suggested that the interviewer should become an ‘active listener’, encouraging the articulation of meanings and experiences by the participant (Holstein and Gubrium, 1993, Bourdieu, 1996). However, McCracken (1988) has criticised this approach, believing it directs participants to answer in particular ways. It was necessary to strike a fine balance between the two, as some

direction was needed to ensure the interview remained focused on my research aims. In this regard a process of ‘responsive interviewing’ was helpful, involving adapting to research relations and the interview context (Rubin and Rubin, 1995).

I interviewed the majority of participants in their homes. As Valentine (1997) notes, this creates a relaxed setting. It adds to migrants’ agency within the research process, as it is a space both constructed and controlled by them (Tolia-Kelly, 2004). It also relates to my research aims, with ‘home’ a central part of migrant identities and notions of belonging (Blunt and Dowling, 2006). Several have noted the significance of domestic material culture in migrants’ lives, which reflects sensory attachments to other places (Tolia-Kelly, 2004, Walsh, 2006). By

conducting interviews in homes, participants were able to show rather than just verbalise experiences related to domestic belonging (Jackson, 2011). However, I allowed participants to choose the most convenient location to be interviewed, and as a result conducted several interviews in public places such as cafes, bars and workplaces.

Another important part of interviewing is developing rapport and trust amongst participants. It is suggested that sharing a background with participants is beneficial to this (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Nonetheless, Valentine (2002) gives examples of developing good relationships with participants despite different standpoints. The process of ‘creative interviewing’, whereby emotions are relayed through a process of mutual disclosure, is also considered helpful for encouraging participants to open up (Douglas, 1985). However, this was of limited use in my research given that I did not share many of the experiences of my participants. This reflects some of the dilemmas of cross-cultural interviewing, which are expanded on in section 3.5.

Interviews have been seen as an effective way of exploring issues across socio- cultural distance (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). Nonetheless, it is necessary to acknowledge racialised subject identities when considering responses of

is argued that empathy and self-disclosure can create shared understanding, furthering the responses of the participant. However, as highlighted above I often lacked similar experiences to disclose. Nevertheless, race is a fluid subject position (Dunbar et al., 2002) and I was able to draw commonalities with other aspects of participants’ lives. Whilst reviews of cross-cultural interviewing often focus on communication problems, it is contended that mutual understanding and

collaboration can be created by actively negotiating the ‘insider-outsider’ boundary (Ryen, 2002). This is explored further in section 3.5.

I conducted multiple interviews with participants. As integration is a process, this enabled me to examine changes over time. In particular, I felt that it was crucial to explore perceptions of a single ritual event, the citizenship ceremony, at different moments in time. Whilst it is suggested that rituals can create a community bound by emotions and shared experience and participation (Somdahl-Sands, 2008), this unity may be temporary, only lasting the length of the event (Moore and Myerhoff, 1977, Fischer-Lichte, 2005). I therefore planned to begin the research process before the citizenship ceremony, with the second stage shortly after it had taken place and the final part three months later. This allowed a comparison of opinions and emotions associated with the ritual at different stages of the process. Previous studies of British citizenship ceremonies and tests have relied on a single interview to assess naturalisation measures (MacGregor and Bailey, 2012, Andreouli and Howarth, 2013, Byrne, 2014), overlooking the significance of temporality in rituals associated with identity and belonging.

Multiple stages of research also allowed greater opportunity to build up relationships and rapport with participants. Although this was not initially the rationale behind this method, it did enhance the research process and the richness of my findings. As would be expected when allowing a stranger into your home, participants were sometimes reticent to begin with, and hesitant when answering my questions. However, by the end of the first interview this awkwardness had often lessened, and at the next interview some greeted me with real warmth, making the interview process run more smoothly and informally. I would often be

offered refreshments before or after the interview, and this generally encouraged friendly chatter, at times lasting long after the interview had finished. While developing rapport with a wide range of people can be challenging, entering into the homes and lives of my participants was made easier by my choice of research methods.

The trust developed over time by conducting multiple interviews is particularly important in cross-cultural research. As Ortiz (2001) found, developing

collaborative relationships with participants over a period of time meant that they increasingly viewed him as an ‘insider’, therefore divulging more details about their lives. Additionally, it enabled him to explore both the past experiences and current lives of participants, which was essential to my study. Furthermore, a careful review of each transcribed interview before the next encounter with the

participant allowed me to pinpoint themes that could be expanded on, adding to the depth of material covered.

3.3.1.1 Interview one – introductions

I aimed to conduct the initial interview several weeks before the citizenship ceremony. This began by adopting a biographical approach, which is considered particularly relevant for exploring the everyday lives of migrants (Halfacree and Boyle, 1993). It is also useful for examining changes in the self over time, in relation to both individual identity and place in a community (Atkinson, 2001). I adopted a similar approach to that of Chaitin et al. (2009), who invited interviewees to “tell us your life story”, instead asking participants to “tell me about your life in Britain”, followed by questions related to my research (see appendix B). This open-ended approach gives participants greater agency, allowing them to control the direction of the interview and talk about what is important to them. Whilst I envisaged that they were likely to implicitly refer to experiences of inclusion/exclusion, integration and their sense of belonging, some participants did not react well to open

interview, often returning to a less structured conversation as they became more relaxed.

The first interview primarily ended up being a useful way of introducing

participants to the research, and beginning to build up rapport. The interview guide was based on finding out background information about their migration journey, origin country and current situation, and I purposefully tried to avoid asking any particularly difficult or sensitive questions, although talking about reasons for migrating was inevitably emotional for some. A number were apprehensive about the research process, and this interview was particularly instrumental with them. One participant asked her immigration advisor, who had referred her to me, to be present at our first meeting. Following this interview she felt comfortable for me to attend her citizenship ceremony and we met twice more after this, both times at her home unaccompanied. However, I was unfortunately unable to recruit most participants in time to conduct an interview before their citizenship ceremony. If this was the case, I interviewed them twice, asking the introductory questions in the post citizenship ceremony interview.

3.3.1.2 Interview two – post citizenship ceremony

The second interview took place shortly after the citizenship ceremony. This was the most substantial interview, focusing on the citizenship ceremony, test and classes. I firstly asked participants to reflect upon their experiences of the

citizenship ceremony, adopting the open-ended phrase “tell me about…”. This was followed by more specific questions exploring the enactment of the performance, the emotions it elicited and their opinions of the event. I also asked for details of guests they brought with them, what they chose to wear and whether they did anything else to celebrate (see appendix B).

The interview also looked at the citizenship test and classes. Here I examined what they considered the purpose of the test to be, how they found the experience of taking it and whether they felt it had helped in their everyday lives. For those

attending citizenship and language classes I was particularly interested in investigating the social aspects of these classes, to discover how participants

interacted with others in the classes and whether this had any implications for their sense of inclusion. Kiwan (2008) argues that engagement in classes has an

integrative potential not provided by the test route. Therefore examining the different outcomes of these two paths to citizenship was an important part of my research.

3.3.1.3 Interview three – three months later

The third interview was conducted approximately three months after the

citizenship ceremony. I asked participants to reflect on their lives since coming to Britain, detailing any significant events or changes. I then moved on to themes relating specifically to identity and belonging, including their conception of

Britishness, their views of the local area, social contact with others and their work environment. These questions aimed to uncover the degree to which they felt included in both the nation and locality, as well as how well they had integrated into British society.

This interview also revisited feelings about the citizenship ceremony and test. As Kong and Yeoh (1997) state, the effects of national rituals on emotional

identification with the nation may be short-lived. The political aims of such measures are to foster a permanent sense of allegiance and I therefore used this interview to see whether participants’ attitudes had changed over time. I explored how they felt British citizenship had impacted on their everyday lives, both in terms of practical aspects such as work and travel and symbolic dimensions of identity and belonging (see appendix B).

3.3.1.4 Language

In order to make my research as inclusive as possible, I considered using translators where appropriate. Although basic knowledge of the English language is a

requirement of naturalisation, I felt that some participants may prefer to express themselves in their own language. However, in the end all interviews were

primarily conducted in English, with two containing a small amount of translation.

There are a number of issues associated with using a translator in interviews. They may potentially create awkwardness, taking away from the natural flow of

conversation. Nonetheless, Williamson et al. (2011) note that the atmosphere was generally relaxed in interviews in which they used a translator. Support from a member of the same ethnic community may in fact put participants at ease. In the case of my interviews, translation was provided by a family member or friend who was already present, stepping in only when needed, which became a natural part of the conversation. Additionally, it is argued that translators do not simply provide descriptions but have the power of choosing how to represent people and their lives (Temple and Koterba, 2009). Given that those translating were part of a participant’s close social network, this seemed less of an issue. However, due to the informal nature they usually did not translate verbatim, and it was sometimes difficult to disentangle the interviewee’s statements from their own. Despite this, in the two cases that involved informal translation, it was a valuable tool to help participants understand the meaning of my questions, and be able to answer them more fully.

Conducting interviews in English brings its own set of problems. There are variations in the way people express themselves in different languages, with divergent structures, degrees of explanation and display of emotions (Temple and Koterba, 2009). Additionally, nonverbal cues may be misunderstood (Ryen, 2002). Although almost half of my participants had spoken English since childhood, with many more since becoming proficient, cultural variations within the language were noticeable. Interviewing was most challenging with those who were less fluent. Whilst I was still able to conduct reasonably fluid conversations with these

participants, I felt that they were often drawing on a limited vocabulary to express themselves. Additionally, they did not always understand my questions, although over time I developed ways of simplifying them. Conducting follow-up interviews

also helped with the language barrier. Often participants seemed nervous to speak in English at first, but by the subsequent interview gained confidence and were able to articulate meanings coherently, using greater detail. When it came to analysing the data, I was therefore able to draw on valid and useful material from all of my interviews.

3.3.1.5 State agent interviews

Interviews with state agents aimed to delve further into the perceived objectives of naturalisation policy and its execution in practice. I was interested to explore variations between local areas, both in the interpretation of national legislation and the way in which they constructed it as a local event. Interviews with

citizenship registrars provided an in-depth account of the ceremonies in their area, focusing on the actors involved, the messages conveyed, new citizens’ responses and the perceived rationale behind them. Talking to the organisers can also

highlight the manipulation of material space in an event (Wood et al., 2007). This is significant in citizenship ceremonies, where the venue forms part of the ritual. Interviews with other bureaucrats focused on their area of involvement, generally considering naturalisation from a national policy perspective. These looked at citizenship ceremonies, tests and classes from their inception right through to the recent changes to the Life in the UK test by the Coalition government, primarily examining the reasoning behind them.

The style of interviewing I used with state agents was different to the approach I took with new citizens. As they were often pressed for time, I had to adopt a slightly more structured format, identifying the most important points to ask them before the interview. I also presented more challenges to state agents, using data I had accumulated from participant observations and interviews with new citizens to question the logic of naturalisation procedures. In some cases this meant playing devil’s advocate, which allowed me to probe deeper into some of the more controversial issues implicated in both policy and practice.

In total I conducted fifty nine interviews, including the eleven with state agents. Four new citizens only attended one interview, seventeen (including the married couple who were interviewed together) were interviewed twice and four new citizens completed all three interviews.