Sampling and recruitment

I used purposeful sampling to identify participants to be included in my study. This is based on creating in-depth understanding by using ‘information-rich cases’ (Patton, 1990). The only criteria were that participants had to have had their application for British citizenship approved, and be awaiting a citizenship ceremony. In the end I had to widen this to include those who had recently attended their citizenship ceremony, as it proved difficult to identify enough people who were at precisely the stage of the citizenship process that I was looking for. I also used a limited degree of snowball sampling, whereby participants

referred me to another individual they knew who had applied for British

citizenship. This approach risks selection bias, drawing participants from a limited range of social networks (Atkinson and Flint, 2001). This could have been a particular concern in my research, which was aiming to recruit migrants with a diverse range of demographics and social positions. However, this issue was minimalised by the fact that I only managed to access one participant using this method.

Recruiting participants was the most challenging aspect of the research process. I was attempting to access a hard-to-reach population, where the sample size and location was relatively unknown (Benoit et al., 2005). The only comprehensive record of those who have recently been granted citizenship is held by the Home Office, and passed onto the local authority concerned in order to invite them to a citizenship ceremony. These records are confidential, and I was therefore unable to gain access to them. However, after contacting the registry offices in my study areas and explaining my research to them, they agreed to send a flyer I had produced asking for research participants (see appendix A) with the letter inviting individuals to a citizenship ceremony. I felt that this was a particularly appropriate

method of recruitment as participants were free to choose whether they wished to contact me, without any external pressure. However, some of the registrars would only send the flyers out for a limited time, and having recruited just four

participants this way, I had to consider other avenues.

My next approach was to identify organisations which could potentially help me to locate new citizens. This necessitated recognising the local contexts in which individuals are embedded, thereby considering which areas of the community potential participants may be involved in (Sixsmith et al., 2003). This initially led me to search for ethnic minority centres and ESOL providers, but this quickly widened to include religious organisations, sporting clubs, legal advice centres, residents’ associations and other types of community group. For each organisation I identified the most relevant individual to contact, and either sent them an email or

telephoned them. Out of the hundreds of emails I sent, only a fraction received a response, but I eventually managed to recruit a reasonable number of participants this way. I also placed adverts in community newspapers, on migration-related websites and mailing lists and on the Facebook pages of community organisations, which received some responses.

Using gatekeepers presents a number of issues. Firstly, they may select only participants that are approved by themselves, creating a biased selection (Sixsmith et al., 2003). However, in the case of the organisations I contacted, those that responded tended to only know of one or two potential participants, and I was more often presented with individuals who did not fit my criteria than denied access to people. Another issue is the role of power relations between the

gatekeeper and participant, with the former often in some position of authority in relation to the latter. This makes informed consent more difficult, as gatekeepers may use coercion to persuade individuals to participate in research (Miller and Bell, 2002). Gatekeepers tended to ask potential participants permission to give me their contact details, although what they told them about my research was beyond my control. I did however use the initial telephone call to emphasis the voluntary nature of participation, a message I reinforced throughout the research process.

My final method of recruitment was approaching people at the citizenship ceremonies I attended in each area. In some ways this was the ideal setting, as I was able to meet them in person to explain my research and answer any questions directly. However, I was concerned that people might feel pressured into

participating if put on the spot, so if they were interested I arranged a subsequent telephone call before setting a date to interview them. The fact that many I talked to said they did not wish to participate was a reassuring sign that people did not feel unduly under pressure. I was also wary of not disturbing what many regarded as a special occasion, and I waited until new citizens and their guests were mingling at the end of the ceremony, which provided a more relaxed, informal setting where people seemed happy to chat.

Whilst my recruitment strategies gave me limited control over the characteristics of my participants, I did end up with a good range of migration backgrounds, nationalities, socio-economic and demographic features within my sample (see table 1). I was also keen for my research to encompass those who are not

considered the ‘targets’ of citizenship measures (cf. MacGregor and Bailey, 2012), including ‘white’ migrants from English-speaking countries such as America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These have generally been

excluded from research on the new citizenship measures, despite the fact that they are likely to have significantly different opinions from other groups of migrants. I managed to recruit a minority of such migrants, including three participants from South Africa and one from Canada. I aimed for a relatively even gender split, interviewing fifteen female and ten male participants. I also felt that recruiting migrants with a variety of ages was important, and participants ranged in age from mid-twenties to early-seventies. All participants had migrated to the UK within the last fifteen years, apart from one, who had been living in the UK for almost thirty years.

One of the difficulties of conducting research involving different phases over a period of time is the increased likelihood of dropouts. While I had accounted for this in my research design, it was impossible to anticipate the number of

participants that would not complete the research process, and the implications this would have on the data. Four participants chose not to participate in more than one interview, but consented to me using the data already collected. However, the interviews I conducted with these individuals were detailed and information-rich, and I was still able to analyse them and use the findings. I

nonetheless identified further cases to ensure I had a sufficient number of multiple interviewees, recruiting twenty five participants in total, including one married couple. This included five from Bradford, six from Calderdale, nine from Leeds and five from North Yorkshire.

In addition to new citizens, I also interviewed eleven state agents (see table 2). This happened towards the end of the fieldwork process, to enable me to identify important stakeholders and issues whilst accumulating data. As one of my

objectives was to consider the effects of citizenship ceremonies and tests on local and national belonging, I interviewed officials operating at both these scales. At the local level, citizenship registrars from each of the my field sites were recruited. Access was straightforward as I had already met them through attending

citizenship ceremonies they had organised. National bureaucrats were recruited on the basis of their involvement in the design or implementation of naturalisation policy. This included David Blunkett, who devised the idea of citizenship

ceremonies and tests, as well as policy advisors and civil servants. Although I was unable to speak to anyone from the current cabinet or shadow cabinet, an up-to- date perspective on citizenship policy was provided by senior civil servants at the Home Office during a day’s visit (see page 82).

Name (pseudonym) Location Country of origin Migration type Age Gender Occupation Citizenship route

Bintu Bradford Sierra Leone Family (marriage) Late 30s Female Hairdresser ESOL Corina Bradford Philippines Economic Early 40s Female Healthcare assistant LIUK

Fiyori Bradford Eritrea Refugee Late 30s Female Cleaner ESOL

Grace Bradford Ghana Student/family (marriage) Mid 40s Female Healthcare assistant LIUK

Pasha Bradford Egypt Family (marriage) Late 20s Female Full-time parent ESOL

Denise Calderdale South Africa Family (marriage) Early 50s Female Logistics analyst LIUK

Jafar Calderdale Sudan Family (marriage) Early 40s Male Factory worker LIUK

Maryam Calderdale Guinea Refugee Mid 30s Female Full-time parent ESOL

Salim Calderdale Pakistan Family (marriage) Late 20s Male Factory worker ESOL

Tanvi Calderdale India Economic Early 40s Female IT technician/parent LIUK

Yolanda Calderdale Philippines Economic Early 40s Female Healthcare assistant LIUK Aakash Leeds India Family (dependent) Mid 20s Male Student/shop assistant LIUK

Abbas Leeds Liberia Refugee Early 30s Male Cleaner/porter ESOL

Isaiah Leeds Nigeria Economic Late 30s Male Nurse LIUK

Juliette Leeds Mexico Student/family (marriage) Early 30s Female Food business LIUK

Kess Leeds Ethiopia Refugee Mid 20s Female Waitress ESOL

Nehanda Leeds Zimbabwe Family (dependent) Early 70s Female Retired nurse N/A due to age

Noah Leeds Zimbabwe Student/economic Early 30s Male Engineer LIUK

Paul and Olisa Leeds Nigeria Economic Mid 40s Male/female Social worker and nurse LIUK Alison North Yorkshire Canada Economic/family Early 40s Female Freelance IT LIUK Daniel North Yorkshire South Africa Economic Mid 50s Male Security guard LIUK Leandre North Yorkshire South Africa Student/economic Mid 30s Female University lecturer LIUK

Moses North Yorkshire Ghana Student/economic Mid 30s Male RAF engineer LIUK

Table 2: Participants – state agents