Research process

Before carrying out the interviews and focus groups, all my research participants were provided with an information sheet that gave details about the research project and outlined their ethical rights (see Appendix 4). The interviews were audio-recorded. At the end of the interview, research participants also signed a consent form, whereby they stated that they had understood their rights and the way I was going to use their data. All my interviews were carried out confidentially.

3.4.5.1 Question guide

The interviews followed a semi-structured question guide, which can be found in Appendix 2. The main themes of the question guide remained the same across all case studies, although it was slightly adapted for each case study to take

102

consideration of project-specific elements. Also, during the course of my interviews I became aware of an additional theme (around ‘informal’ actors’

approach to media and publicity) that was frequently mentioned, especially in my research in Mumbai. Thus, I adapted my question guide to include a prompt on this issue. Such adaptation of the interview topics is in line with grounded theory practice, which suggests refining (and potentially narrowing) interview topics in order to gather more “specific data for developing our theoretical frameworks as we proceed with conducting interviews” (Charmaz, 2006: 29). I also adapted the question guide for my focus groups, as set out in section 3.4.2.

3.4.5.2 Research settings

The interviews and focus groups took place in a range of settings. These interview locations were generally suggested by my interviewees. About half of my interviews and focus groups took place in indoors, public venues, such as cafés and hotel bars. A small number took place in the research participants’

private homes or in an office. But a sizeable number of interviews (15) took place outdoors, including near railway stations, at the site of the street performer festival or over a garden fence. These different research settings proved challenging in a variety of ways.

Perhaps the most obvious challenge for interviews that took place in public spaces was the background noise, including loud espresso machines, background music in cafes, hotels and at the festival site, and trains or traffic going past at outdoor sites. Such background noise affected the quality of my interview recordings, which made the transcription process more difficult. Where possible, I tried to move my interviewees away from the source of noise;

however, interviewees were not always willing to go away very far (for example, to walk away from the festival site to a quieter spot).

While noise was not a problem in office spaces and (most) private homes, these settings presented other challenges. Office environments gave the interview a more ‘official’ and ‘professional’ feel, which also translated into a different attitude by research participants towards the interview. Apart from one exception, the interviews in office spaces were a lot more concise and focused,

103

with interviewees less likely to expand on their responses or to divert from the question asked. In contrast, interviews that took place in public spaces were more relaxed and interviewees seemed less aware of time constraints.

In line with ethical guidelines, I tried to avoid meeting my research participants at their private homes, in order to guarantee the health and safety of myself, as the researcher. However, due to logistical reasons, I had to make a number of exceptions. In these cases, I took care to ensure that my personal safety remained paramount, usually by taking along a chaperone. However, conducting research in private homes also meant that I had to adapt, and to some extent submit, to the habits and norms of the individual I was welcomed by. In most cases, this did not constitute a problem, but in the case of one focus group in Mumbai, the norms of the specific socio-cultural group of my research participants affected the research process. For instance, the focus group was clearly dominated by the male voices in the group. In contrast, several of the women felt obliged to their hosting duties, and periodically left the focus group discussion to prepare food and offer drinks. Towards the end of the focus group, the discussion was also cut off prematurely by one participant, who was the project lead, who thanked me for speaking to them and announced that food was now being served.

During interviews and focus groups which took place in other informal, public spaces or on-site I also had to contend with interruptions. Such interruptions included interviewees meeting acquaintances on-site and interrupting the interview to have a chat, or a station manager, who carried out the interview while on duty, periodically making station announcements. A few of my interviewees also wanted to show me around the site at the same time as being interviewed, which meant that the flow of the conversation was sometimes interrupted by them pointing out a particular feature of the site.

Overall, the research participants showed a positive attitude towards the research project and my request to speak to them. The research setting sometimes had a bearing on the research participants’ attitude. Often, research participants valued the fact that I had made an effort to come and see them at

104

the site of the project. One exception to this was the street performer festival, where a couple of interviewees gave me the feeling that I was interrupting them from having a good day out in the sun, listening to friends playing music – despite the interview having been pre-arranged. As a result they were reluctant to move to a different (quieter) interview location.

3.4.5.3 Status of ‘foreign researcher’

In the case of the Mumbai case studies, the attitude of my interviewees was often linked to my status as ‘foreign researcher’. As Roy (2009, 2016: 201) reminds us, it is not only important to pay attention to the ‘geographies of theory’, but

“such geographies are also necessarily biographies. Those biographies indicate the ‘politics of location', a term I borrow from feminist poet Adrienne Rich (2003 [1984]), within which we are centered or marginalized. To speak is to speak from a place on the map which, as Rich reminds us, is also a place in history.”

It is worth noting, that I was a ‘foreign’ researcher in both cities. However, having lived in the UK for a decade and given the internationalism of the city of London, my status as ‘foreign researcher’ was hardly ever remarked or commented upon.

In contrast, in the case of the Mumbai case studies, many interviewees expressed that they felt honoured that I had come ‘all the way from London’ to speak to them. As Dinardi (2012: 75) observed for her research in Argentina, the mention of this “global city certainly awakened curiosity, if not postcolonial admiration of Europe”. This was equally true in my research and helped to gain access to research participants. More than that, they were sometimes willing to make a significant effort to meet me. For instance, during one focus group that took place in the hotel where I was staying I became aware that several of the research participants had got up early on a Saturday and travelled up to two hours to participate in my research.

Thus, participating in a research project linked to an English speaking university carried some prestige and formality. However, this status as ‘foreign researcher’

105

sometimes affected the power relations between me, the researcher, and the research participants. While I generally positioned myself as a friendly, non-threatening interlocutor in an informal conversation, I still sometimes became aware of this unequal power balance. For instance, a couple of interviewees were wary of my intentions and very keen to promote the project, and their involvement, in a positive light, including one interviewee who specifically requested me at the end of our conversation to be “kind” in my reflections on India.

In another case, I realised from comments made by the participants of a focus group, who were mostly young college students, that they felt somewhat intimidated by the environment of the western-style hotel which we were meeting in. They were also extremely reluctant to order any drinks or food, even after I had reassured them that I would pay the bill for everyone, which suggests that they were just not accustomed to the norms and behaviours expected of them in this particular space.⁷

However, being sensitive to such feelings was an important element of me being able to conduct my research. For instance, with regards to the group of college students, I quickly realised that – despite the unfamiliar location – they were gaining confidence from the fact that they were in their group of friends.

Thus, I decided that I would not insist on carrying out individual interviews with them, or to only interview a couple of the lead team members. Instead I adapted my research technique to that of a focus group. These decisions made them feel valued and helped to quickly build trust and bridge the power inequality, as proven by the length and increasing openness of the conversation, and that by

7 This was not the case with all research participants in India, as I met many of them in the same space and they seemed much more at ease in the surroundings.

106

the end, group members liberally asked me questions and requested personal favours.

The latter issue touches upon an ethical issue – that of the boundaries between the personal and the research – which I frequently came across throughout my field work. Indeed, while similar issues may occur in all types of research, I would argue that the very subject of my research, the informal, meant that I was presented with a number of ethical issues that I may not have otherwise encountered. This is further discussed in the following section.