Reflection and critical evaluation: interviews

This section will prove a reflection on the role of the researcher and conducting the one to one interviews with a family member, as well as a critical evaluation of the one to one interviews, and is written in the first person.

This research was conducted over several visits to each community from July 2011 to May 2013. The engagement approach involved making my sister and I visible and familiar to encourage trust and response from participants. The interaction and rapport with individuals developed gradually over the recruitment period and in creating this relationship with individuals in the community, this made recruitment for the interviews easier.

This was not ‘immersion’ in the strictest ethnographic sense; I had not spent long periods living in the communities and was not considered an ‘insider’, and yet was not considered an ‘outsider’ either. The engagement process had increased familiarity with participants and this contributed to the success of the interviews, resulting in rich, informative data; participants felt comfortable enough to discuss their past flood experiences and family relationships, the issues behind their attitudes to elders and their ethnic community.

However, what must also be considered is the impact of the positionality of the researcher on the interviewing process; the “specific positions of the researcher interacted to produce insider-outsider contexts as other researchers who have conducted research within a minority context and share ethnicity with participants have also pointed out” (Das, 2010: 17).

As I am a female second generation British Asian, of Indian origin, the research amongst the South Asian community may be seen to some extent as ‘insider’ research as it involved social interviews between researcher and participants who share the same cultural, linguist, ethnic or religious heritage (Ganga & Scott, 2006). During data collection, a particular ethnic background can be very helpful. Such researchers “can have privileged relations within immigrant groups....and advantages arise from familiarity with the languages” (Ganga & Scott, 2006:2).

This was evident in my research as it has been discussed that I was accepted into the community as another ‘brown’ person. When speaking with participants from the South Asian community, they asked about my background and where my family originated from. Disclosure of this information and discussion of similar cultural and religious experiences, familiarity with traditional concepts such as ‘izzat’ or honour as well as speaking a shared language, increased rapport, hospitality and acceptance with these participants. This was because they felt comfortable especially as there was a reduction in the “hierarchical relationship between the researcher and the participant” (Das, 2010: 19). This led to greater understanding of the nuances of participant’s experiences and subsequently greater depth to

the interviews. During this conversation, I was supported by my sister in sharing our family background, and this increased the rapport that participants had with us, and further influenced our ‘insider’ status, encouraging the flow of conversation. This provides further evidence of ‘lived’ ethnicities in terms of being able to relate to different South Asian migrants based on our shared South Asian background.

My feeling of power based on this ‘connection’ with participants was further enhanced as my familiarity with the culture and languages spoken meant that I could correctly analyse and interpret words or phrases that could not appropriately be translated into English. I recognised that I could not build the same rapport with migrants who were not from South Asian countries, and realised that I had to relate to them in some other way to ensure that the interviews were not limited and my research would not be biased; “the insider status is constantly negotiated and while there are aspects of race or ethnicity that can be a unifying factor, issues of gender, sexuality, class and power are constantly at work shaping the power discourse in the researcher- researched relationship” (Das, 2010:17).

Therefore, to overcome the issue of ‘powerlessness’ amongst other migrant groups, different elements of my identity were shared depending on the person I was interviewing. The shared experiences ranged from social issues to educational background. In terms of non migrants, I am British and thus discussion of experiences was as wide ranging as with the South Asian participants. It must also be acknowledged that I was able to build better rapport and felt more comfortable with female participants than male participants. This may have been due to the nuisance calls received from a male resident when trying to recruit participants, which increased my vulnerability and affected my feelings of ‘power’ whilst door knocking. It may also be because of my upbringing in a female dominated household or that as a woman I could relate better to the women in the study than the men.

My ethnic and British identity, along with that of my sister had helped to create a point of understanding with participants, and led the way to exploring the key themes within the research.

Although conducting the one to one interviews with my sister led to rich informative data, it has to be considered that due to the intersection between gender and age, there was a different interviewer-interviewee relationship when I conducted the one to one interviews with my mum as a translator, which may have led to bias. In the interviews with my sister, I was in control, as is the norm in our daily life; I am the older sister and I almost always take charge, and this supports the social norms relating to age and assertiveness (Agarwal, 1997). The same principle applied whilst conducting the interviews; I asked the questions and engaged with the participant and my sister was there in a supportive role, often adding her

comments when directly spoken to by the participant but otherwise not influencing their views during the interview.

Yet in the one to one interviews, I noted that many South Asian participants, both male and female and those that may have been older than and younger than my mum responded better to her as an older woman than to me as a younger woman. This may have been due to the cultural and social norms about respecting older people, and her greater bargaining position, which resulted in my mum receiving more respect than I would. Thus as an older woman they felt it was respectful to talk and engage with her than to only respond directly to my questions. That is not to say that I was ignored throughout the conversation, but they made a greater effort to involve her.

Furthermore, as she was an older woman, it appeared that they felt more comfortable talking about issues in general in their mother tongue that she would understand as an Asian woman, daughter, mother and a wife because she had more life experience than I did. In particular issues such as the difficulties related to raising children and encouraging them to speak the mother tongue were discussed in greater depth between my mum and a female participant than may have been explored with me. This may have been because the participant was trying to express her feelings and used my mum to support her argument because she felt that my mum may also have faced these same issues as a migrant woman herself.

In this way my mum facilitated the conversation, and rather than being a source of bias this was actually beneficial for the research because I was able to hear these thoughts and opinions that were being freely expressed because the participant, whether they were older or younger than my mum felt comfortable talking to us and especially because they could speak in their mother tongue. It was interesting because I was still in control in terms of asking the questions I needed to and following, understanding and contributing to the conversation, but I could start the topic and observe how the two older women discussed the issues in depth.

It has to be considered that my mum participated in the conversation and this may have influenced the flow of conversation, but this resulted in the participant feeling comfortable and talking openly about the issues being discussed, and talking more widely about other issues as a result of this interaction, and this resulted in rich data.

The differences between the interviews where I was accompanied by my sister as opposed to my mum may subsequently be seen as a source of bias; if older non-English speaking participants felt more comfortable talking to my mum, then maybe she should have accompanied me to all the interviews. However, I do not think this is the case. I think in all

the interviews every effort was made to engage with the participant; in the interviews with English speaking participants this was achieved by using different aspects of my British and ethnic identity to engage with them on issues that they could relate to.

Furthermore, it has to be considered that where my mum as a first generation migrant and mother was able to engage with participants who may not have been able to speak English about their life experiences and the issues they may have with raising children and maintaining their ethnic and cultural beliefs after migration, my sister and I are also second generation migrants. Thus although we were able to converse with English speaking first generation migrants and discuss issues in depth, we were also able to relate more directly to the second generation migrants we interviewed. As second generation migrant ourselves, we were able to relate to the issues they discussed about listening to parents, about the cultural and religious beliefs that may not be strictly followed with each generation, about the different relationship with parents in comparison to grandparents, and this led to these participants to be more forthright in the interviews.

It must be noted that prior to the interviews I had discussed with both my mum and sister that that the casual conversation with participants was to put them at ease. The conversation prior to the interview should not involve issues that were to be discussed in the interview as this may have had the effect of leading the participants in their responses to issues such as cultural norms or gender issues. When these issues were discussed in the interviews we spoke about our understanding of them and how we could relate to them, but were careful not to influence the participants or divert the conversation based on our individual views of these issues.

Thus although researching with two women, one older and one younger, a first and second generation migrant may be seen as a source of bias, in the context of this research it was extremely advantageous and valuable to have a female family unit which allowed me to engage with the different individuals and migrant generations in the research, and overcome to some extent any limitations I may have had as a younger woman talking to older participants, and this resulted in detailed rich data. It was discussed earlier that interviewers are active participants in interactions with respondents, and the interview is a negotiated accomplishment of both interviewers and respondents that are shaped by the contexts in which they take place (Fontana & Frey, 2000). This was evident in this research and I acknowledge my role in the interviewing process as well as the role of my mum and sister. I did not simply conduct an interview and come away with knowledge; as part of the social constructivist stance of this research, it is acknowledged that knowledge and meaning was constructed through interaction with the participants. My background relating to my personal, cultural and historical experiences shaped my interpretations.

The research also revealed that conducting the research as a female family unit may be a further source of bias, as a higher number of women than men were interviewed in both study locations. This may be a result of more women being in the questionnaire survey sample, which created the sample for the one to one interviews. Additionally, it may be because women, more than men felt comfortable talking to two women and may have felt it was socially acceptable for them to do so. Men may not have wanted to take part in an interview with two women due to cultural issues or they may have felt uncomfortable sharing personal opinions with women in relation to ‘gendered interviewing’ (Fontana & Frey, 2005). The majority of participants were also of South Asian origin and this may have been a result of me being British Asian and being accompanied by another British Asian female which may have encouraged a greater response from the South Asian community than any other ethnic group. The female family unit may therefore have influenced the sample for the one to one interviews, leading to a higher number of South Asian women participating in the research.

Yet it has to be considered that in having a female family unit research team we were able to gain permission from men (who did not see us as a threat) when required in order to talk to the women in their household for the one to one interviews. Thus although researching as a female family unit may have biased my sample, as an exploratory, unorthodox research approach it gave me access to South Asian women who may not have had a voice, and allowed me to engage with them and hear their stories. If this was achieved through having a biased sample, then this may be seen as a positive outcome.

Alam (2014) utilised the relationship with his wife to access Bangladeshi households, and in this research, having a female family unit as a research team provided me with a unique opportunity to access the community and in particular households where women may not have been able to partake in the research had it been conducted by a male researcher due to the enforcement of gender norms and social constraints. Subsequently, in what may be seen as a consequence of gendered interviewing (Fontana & Frey, 2005), these women revealed wider issues relating to gender norms and patriarchal control and when this was understood in the context of this research, this provided an invaluable insight through an intersectional lens focusing on migrants, generation and gender and how they intersect in the flood risk context. The female family unit research approach applied in this research is therefore seen to be unconventional but it did facilitate access into migrant communities and households and allowed research to be conducted amongst an ‘overprotected’ and thus not easily accessible group.

The reflexivity into researching with family members in the context of the one to one interviews has been discussed, but there must also be an evaluation of the research method

itself. The participants who completed the questionnaire surveys were asked if they were willing to participate in the qualitative research. Contact numbers were taken from residents who agreed. These residents were telephoned approximately eight months later to arrange interviews, but in many cases residents had moved or changed their mobile numbers. I am based in London and the study sites were in the Midlands and Yorkshire. Thus I had to visit residents in person to make appointments. A lesson learnt was to take both mobile and landline contact numbers.

There were a maximum of four interview slots booked per day. This was to allow time for the introduction and to get written, signed permission from participants to audio record the interview sessions. There were numerous cases where the participant was not at home at the appointed time and was not contactable by phone. Hence they had effectively cancelled their interview and wasted a two hour time slot. I then made sure to call all participants the evening before their interview to remind them of the appointment, or give them the opportunity to rearrange if required. This was an effective and essential approach to time management during the interview process. It also provides an insight into the ‘power’ relations between interviewer and interviewee. I felt in control of the research and the interviews, but ultimately the interviewees decided whether I could achieve this control. Thus I felt powerless when recruiting participants, and therefore the assumed dominant position of the researcher may be questioned. It is subsequently recognised that there is movement of power between the researcher and the participants during the research process (Das, 2010). It also highlights that despite the benefits of the female family unit approach to conducting the research and engaging with the community, this approach did not recruit all participants and there were individuals who simply did not want to take part in the research. It must also be mentioned that despite attempts to create rapport with all participants there were some individuals who genuinely were not interested in the research and thus answered the questions quickly and without thought in order to complete the interview. In these cases the participants were probed as much as possible but they were limited in their responses and interaction with me.

It has been discussed that there were interviews conducted with non English speakers for which I had prepared for by using a translator in a supportive capacity. Nevertheless, there were issues with certain dialects of Urdu that are not widely spoken. In these cases, both my mum and I could understand the spoken language but could not reply in the specific dialect. Hence a family member from within the household had to be used to communicate with participants, and through understanding the response from the participant, I could ensure that questions were being understood correctly. This was a longer, time consuming process as the family member had not seen the questions before and did not understand why they were

asked. Thus the questions were often translated inaccurately. Hence I had to repeat questions and explain what was being asked to the family member to ensure that they were being translated and interpreted correctly. A lesson learnt is to clarify which language the participant will want to communicate in to prepare a suitable translator beforehand.

The one to one interviews may have had a low response rate, but of the interviews conducted they were seen to be successful as they produced detailed, informative data which could be analysed and explored in depth to address the research aim and objectives.